home

Freddie Gray Thread 2

Here's a new thread to continue the discussion about matters related to Freddie Gray.

< Omar Khadr: America's Shame | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Curfew (1.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:36:29 AM EST
    Prosecutors Dropping Charges Against Those Arrested For Curfew Violations

    ehhh -- it was only the mayor and the mayor's  curfew, right???

    And afterall they did need space to ... do what they do.

    And Mosby&Co do have their hands full with that railroad they're running.

    Did anyone really expect charges???

    Predictable (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:46:18 AM EST
    Outrage at charges being made over a homicide. Outrage at charges not being made over penny-ante crimes.

    Parent
    What would your response be if (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 08:19:59 AM EST
    there had been no curfew and things had continued to spiral out of control?  Would you be defending the mayor?

    Something tells me that's not likely.

    Oh, and your link doesn't work.  Here's one that does.

    Do you disagree that dropping curfew violation-only charges is the right thing to do?  

    If the governor, who had declared a state of emergency and called in the National Guard, had been the one to impose a curfew, would that have been okay?  So, is your derision reserved just for the mayor who felt it in the best interest of the citizens to restore calm and end the violence by imposing a curfew?

    Make up your mind, please.


    Parent

    50 (1.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    Can Mosby&Co count to 50 or just to 6:

    Horror injuries of Baltimore man, 61, after near fatal attack by pack of FIFTY teens, including girls, when he tried to break up a fight

    She is so busy trumping up  charges against 6 police officers that she hardly has time to find the 50 thugs&thugettes involved in this attempted mob murder.

    Are these all going the way of the curfew violators too???

    Parent

    Mosby doesn't have to count, because (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    her office doesn't have jurisdiction - Baltimore County does.

    See here

    Just a suggestion, but you might want to try local sources for your news instead of the Daily Mail.

    And I'd give your doctor a jingle - that hard-on you've had for Mosby has lasted way more than 4 hours.

    Parent

    So (1.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    then are you saying that Mosby&Co have been relegated to seatbelt and curfew violations???

    She can indict 6 police officers for failing to buckle a seatbelt, but no one who viciously assaults an innocent bystander???

    Parent

    I'm saying that Baltimore City (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    and Baltimore County are two different jurisdictions, and this is not a Baltimore City case.  Look at a map for God's sake, look up the County State's Attorney.

    Marilyn Mosby isn't responsible for the entire State of Maryland; she can't just willy-nilly go filing charges against people for crimes that happened outside the City of Baltimore.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or can you just not bear to admit that you made a mistake and should not have pilloried Mosby for something that she's not responsible for?

    And, moving on with the corrections, Mosby has not indicted the 6 officers, her office has charged them; indictments issue from the grand jury, not the prosecutor's office.

    You are worse than any tabloid.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#160)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 05:29:14 PM EST
    so you are saying that this case belongs to another jurisdiction -- Baltimore County.

    Well that explains how they have atleast one person in custody. Not sure Mosby&Co could have even accomplished that.

    Do you think that these 50 thugs&thugettes were among those wailers who Mosby was speaking to when she said that she heard their cries for justice???

    Parent

    Word (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2015 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    salad alert! The lettuce is limp and the thugs&thugettes dressing is positively disgusting.

    Parent
    Move those goalposts (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Yman on Tue May 12, 2015 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    And it only took two posts for you to realize why your first specious claim was demonstrably false (i.e. the wrong jurisdiction).

    A new record ...

    Parent

    Hey Yman -- (none / 0) (#163)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    FOX News is reporting that more arrests are expected in the brutal beating

    Should we believe FOX News or not???

    Parent

    FoxNewsDC is a little behind the curve; (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    there have been seven arrests made so far: read about it here.

    You have now cluttered up this thread with a series of comments that began when you came in here all full of question marks and shrieking punctuation with a headline you plucked from a British tabloid believing - since you clearly never actually read the article - that it was proof that Marilyn Mosby was incompetent.

    You spent a couple more comments avoiding the truth that it didn't happen in Mosby's jurisdiction, and then tried to shift the discussion to the failure of local news to cover the story.  Another falsehood, followed by another failure to admit that was just as wrong as everything else you'd stated.

    Now, you want to get in Yman's face as to whether we should believe FoxNews?  

    I think the real question is whether anyone should believe YOU, about anything you say on any subject.  The answer to that question is now a resounding "no."

    Parent

    WOW (1.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 13, 2015 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    Look at that --

    They've arrested 5 more street thugs for this brutal beating since the Daily Mail article came out yesterday morning.

    Shouldn't you be thanking  the Daily Mail for publicizing this and lighting a fire under Baltimore officials them to make the arrests???

    Parent

    So, now it's clear: you aren't (3.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Anne on Wed May 13, 2015 at 07:34:00 AM EST
    working at being obtuse, that's your natural state.

    Local news has been reporting on this incident all along, the course of the investigation and the arrests - in fact, the new arrests were the lead story on all the local stations, and on their web pages.  

    I can assure you that the impetus for arrests did not come via the Daily Mail - the Daily Mail is getting its information from local news reports - as I also pointed out to you yesterday.  As I also pointed out that the Daily Mail did not have the news of the later arrests before the local news did.

    And do I really have to remind you AGAIN that this incident is under the jurisdiction of Baltimore COUNTY, and not Baltimore CITY?  "Baltimore" officials are not involved in this case - as much as you keep trying to make it so.

    Chip, just stop, I beg of you.  Your dishonest, fractured, confabulated comments have lost you any chance to be taken seriously or deemed credible on anything.

    Parent

    You probably do (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    I prefer more reliable sources.

    All of which is irrelevant to the fact that it took you three posts (missed one) to realize that your latest specious attack on Mosby was demonstrably false, since you accused her of dropping charges in a case in an entirely different jurisdiction.

    Oops.

    Parent

    CBSLOCAL (none / 0) (#166)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    you accused her of dropping charges in a case in an entirely different jurisdiction.

    Tell that to CBSLOCAL:

    Prosecutors Dropping Charges Against Those Arrested For Curfew Violations

    The Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office tells WJZ prosecutors are dropping all charges against individuals arrested solely for curfew violations.

    So this isn't Mosby's office???

    Parent

    You're talking about two different (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 09:41:31 PM EST
    things - how do you not know this?

    The mob-beats-man incident happened in Baltimore County; curfew violations occurred in Baltimore City.

    You wanted to make a federal case out of Mosby "only" being able to charge 6 police officers and not the 50 people involved in the Richard Fletcher beating - and it was explained to you that the Fletcher beating was not in her jurisdiction.

    So, with that off the table, now you want to make a big deal out of Mosby's office dropping the charges for curfew-only arrests?  What does that have to do with anything?  Do you think the city should use its resources to prosecute them?

    What's next?  Did she forget to put out the recycling?  

    You're like one giant malapropism, trying to stitch together some sort of case against Mosby from headlines.  You are so lost in your own fractured and tortured logic, I'm not sure you can find your way back.

    Parent

    You can't even keep your own ... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Tue May 12, 2015 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    ... silly, fairy tales straight.

    But I'll help you remember.  Here's what you claimed:

    Can Mosby&Co count to 50 or just to 6:

    Horror injuries of Baltimore man, 61, after near fatal attack by pack of FIFTY teens, including girls, when he tried to break up a fight

    She is so busy trumping up  charges against 6 police officers that she hardly has time to find the 50 thugs&thugettes involved in this attempted mob murder.

    And

    She can indict 6 police officers for failing to buckle a seatbelt, but no one who viciously assaults an innocent bystander???

    Of course, the problem with your silly claim is that the assault happened in Baltimore County (hint - it's NOT the city), so it's not even in her jurisdiction.  Of course, this has already been pointed out to you numerous times and another one of your specious attacks bites the dust, so you try to move the goal posts again and switch to curfew violations.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Embarrassing, huh?

    Parent

    Not to mention that I thought it was (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 10:15:06 PM EST
    the police department's job to find the individuals responsible for the beating; given that county police have arrested 7 people - so far - I'd say the police were doing their job, and now it will be up to Scott Shellenberger to handle the prosecutions.

    But I'm sure Chip will find a way to fracture that into something else he can beat Mosby over the head with...I can hardly wait for tomorrow's sh!tstorm of question marks and exclamation points...this stuff's getting really, really old.

    Parent

    Yman: dropping charges (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 13, 2015 at 07:05:15 AM EST
    Need I remind you of your own words, o you of such short term memory and quick to saccuse??

    You said I accused her of "dropping charges" in a case outside her jurisdiction. Your words are right above.

    She did "drop charges" in the case I pointed out, didn't she -- the case of the curfew violators???

    So that case must have been in her jurisdiction, right???  

    Go choke on your own post and take it up with CBSLOCAL --.

    Parent

    Sorry, Chip (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Yman on Wed May 13, 2015 at 07:47:47 AM EST
    Your post is right above for all to see.  You were blaming her for not filing charges in the assault case, despite the fact that it was a different jurisdiction.  Then, when caught pushing a silly, specious claim, you resort to a completely different story ... curfew violations.  

    He Need a fork and knife to help eat those words, Chip.  Good thing the all-you-can-eat buffet stays open 24/7 just for you.

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    the Daily Mail (1.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 12, 2015 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    Just a suggestion, but you might want to try local sources for your news instead of the Daily Mail.

    Are you questioning the facts of this story from the Daily Mail??

    What facts therein do you dispute???

    Have any of the local sources reported on and followed this story or are they llke you trying to dismiss it and hide it???

    Isn't it a shame when a foreign news site is a better source of what is happening in Baltimore than local sources???

    Parent

    Do you read the local paper? (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    Do you watch the local news?  

    I gave you a link to a local news report, did I not?  Did you notice that in the Daily Mail story you linked to there were references to two local news stations?  Where do you think the Daily Mail got its information?

    Here's what I see:

    You don't read beyond the headlines.
    You don't check the sources or follow the links.
    You aren't as good at deflecting as you think you are.

    You raised the attack on this man in order to rake Mosby over the coals again, and when it was pointed out to you that she did not and does not have jurisdiction over the incident, you decided to accuse me of ignoring the story, when in fact, that wasn't the point of your bringing it up in the first place.  And in spite of the Daily Mail using local sources in its own coverage, you've thrown out another accusation that somehow the local media isn't covering this case.

    Good God, man, give it up.  Go chow down on a big ol' steaming plate of STFU.

    Parent

    Interesting segment/discussion (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Fri May 08, 2015 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    on Megyn Kelly.
    http://tinyurl.com/ojz2fn9

    Kelly and Mark Eiglarsh make some good points about the knife, the arrest and the lead investigator.

    When he isn't trying to be a comedian, Eiglarsh does a good job of breaking down the law in high profile cases.  

    If Megyn Kelly (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 08, 2015 at 06:25:49 PM EST
    ...had an interesting discussion it would be the first time in her entire life.  Her track record sets the odds against her having a coherent thought so high that I'm not even gonna buy that lottery ticket.

    Summarize, if you will.

    Parent

    Why, certainly. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    Night after night, "The Kelly File" is a classic profile of the blonde leading the blind.

    Hope that helps. ;-D

    Parent

    Equal treatment under the law (none / 0) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 08, 2015 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    Link

    The young man in the blue hoodie seen in pictures smashing police cars during violent protests in Baltimore has a name and a family. He is Allen Bullock. He voluntarily surrendered to police, only to be held on half a million dollars' bail, an amount his parents say is "ridiculous."


    do you have any information (none / 0) (#3)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    about the law as it pertains to the customary bail for trashing a police car?

    could not find that info in the article you linked to, & the question arises because your comment's header is "Equal treatment under the law"

    thanks

    Parent

    No I do not (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 08, 2015 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    but I'm assuming you read this part:

    Bullock, 18, is charged with eight counts, including rioting and malicious destruction of property -- all of them misdemeanors -- after he showed up with his stepfather at the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center

    Some additional investigative reporting here

    "Historically, bails are set very high in Baltimore, the average is $100,000. There are so many who need this support. We have a little bail fund and they have a big, big criminal justice system," said Nicole Lee, a human rights lawyer with Arch City Defenders that is working with Bmore United, a justice coalition of citizens in Baltimore.

    What are your thoughts on the bail amount? Your prior comment did not say.  Thank you.

    To be clear - I'm not condoning rioting, merely pointing out the amount of bail set and how it seems exorbitant for what amounts to property destruction and disorderly conduct.

    Parent

    comparison of bail amounts (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    Among the economic disparities brought to light by protests in Baltimore last week, one was a number: $500,000. That was the bail set for a protester who turned himself in, and his family had no way to pay it (an online fundraising drive has raised just over $6,000). Meanwhile, all six police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray on Friday faced bail amounts of $350,000 or less, which they were able to post for their release.

    It's a familiar story in Baltimore, where 87 percent of inmates at the jail are there pretrial. Twenty-nine percent of those have actually been deemed likely to show up in court. Nationally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 62 percent of the U.S. jail population -- there are about 750,000 inmates at any given time -- has not been convicted of a crime. Many of them aren't a danger to society. They just can't afford to post bail. And those weeks or months of incarceration can wreak havoc on their lives, as jobs are lost, children neglected  and cars repossessed.

    Six out of ten inmates haven't even been convicted yet. link



    Parent
    As you probably know, there are many, many (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:45:49 PM EST
    variables regarding the amount of bail a judge imposes. And, as you probably also know, some judges abuse this prerogative to an alarming degree. But, in layman's terms, the amount of bail is supposed to be that amount the judge feels will "guarantee" the defendant's next court appearance.

    Some average bail settings from New Jersey:

    1.Manslaughter (2'nd degree)  
       $100,000 to $200,000

    2.Kidnapping (1'st degree)  
       $200,000 to $400,000

    3.Manslaughter (2'nd degree)  
       $100,000 to $200,000

    4.Aggravated Arson (2'nd degree)  
       $35,000 to $75,000

    5.Aggravated Sexual Assault (1'st degree)  
       $150,000 to $300,000

    6.Robbery (1'st degree)
        $100,000 to $250,000

    7.Aggravated Arson (2'nd degree)  
        $35,000 to $75,000

    Most assault, robbery and drug felony charges will lead to bails averaging: 25,000 - $100,000.

    So, obviously, the $500,000 bail set for the Baltimore protester, who, voluntarily surrendered himself, seems outrageous.

    Parent

    Just to spell out the rationale (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    A bail amount can properly be higher (in jurisdictions that use money bail at all) for a more serious charge ONLY IF the seriousness of the charge bears on the likelihood of flight (incentive not to return to court, in light of likely sentence if convicted) or (in jurisdictions that allow this factor) dangerousness (if there is a showing of such by evidence, not just by the nature of the charge itself, of which of course the defendant is presumed innocent). When a defendant voluntarily turns himself/herself in to face a charge, the risk-of-flight factor is seriously undermined.

    Parent
    Bail amount counter productive IMO (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    Allen Bullock's mother has told the Guardian that due to the bail amount imposed, she regrets helping to talk her son into turning himself in.

    Bad policy IMO to intentionally create an atmosphere that discourages cooperation from the community.

    F. Michael Higginbotham, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, agreed.

    "I think that that goes to continuing strained police-community relations," Higginbotham told NBC station WBAL of Baltimore.

    "We need to take a step back and say, OK, how do we go forward from here? What is the way to improve police-community relations, not exacerbate it?" he said. "I think these high bail amounts will exacerbate it." link



    Parent
    A thoughtful, and (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 10, 2015 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    to me, persuasive argument to abolish bail is made by Maya Schenwar, in a NYT op-ed, May 8, 2015.  Among points in her discussion are that many are in jail because they can't come up with the bail amount, essentially, locking people up for being poor.  

    The issue of flight risk is addressed by the observation that  those deemed a flight risk are not granted bail in the first place, and, as experience, for instance, in DC demonstrates, there are few no shows.  

    Those not able to meet bail are also at a disadvantage with a greater chance of conviction at trial since it is harder to navigate from behind bars than confronting charges at home.  Even if found non-guilty at trial, those jailed pre-trial may lose jobs and housing.   Any reform to the criminal justice system needed to include a challenge to the monetary bail system.

    Parent

    Failures to appear (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun May 10, 2015 at 09:24:06 PM EST
    as to pending felony charges are "rare" in D.C.?  

    Parent
    Did she... (2.00 / 2) (#150)
    by MikeB on Tue May 12, 2015 at 08:15:57 AM EST
    ....have any regret her son destroyed a police car? Maybe if they don't break the law, the amount of bail is irrelevant.

    Parent
    Turning yourself in (none / 0) (#50)
    by JanaM on Sat May 09, 2015 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    What a terrible dilemma for the mother. But this is a helpful factor for his lawyer and it should help her son in the end.  She's not wrong for encouraging her son to be responsible just because the bail system is so broken in Baltimore and lots of places it seems.

    Parent
    The bail imposed might well deter (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 09, 2015 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    other members of the community to make a different choice when faced with the same situation.

    It appears that in this instance the judicial system in Baltimore has ignored the fact that Bullock turned himself in when setting bail. Hopefully, that fact will not be ignored when the case comes before the court.

    Will the court decide to make an example of Mr. Bullock or will they factor in all of his actions including the fact that he turned himself in? I guess time will tell.

    Parent

    Bullock has been released; his family (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    was able, with the help of contributions from around the world, to pay the tab.

    No question in my mind that the bail set for him was punitive; turning one's self in is a pretty good indication that one is not a flight risk.

    I expect this will be one aspect of the Justice Department's review.

    Parent

    As to your final sentence, what I've read (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun May 10, 2015 at 09:19:10 PM EST
    the US DOJ will investigate the police dept. The state law   jurisdiction court sets bail.

    Parent
    I have to assume, although I am not knowledgable (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Sat May 09, 2015 at 12:54:37 PM EST
    concerning Maryland criminal procedure or court jurisdiction, that an initial bail decision is subject to prompt review by a higher court and can be overturned if unreasonable. High bail cannot lawfully be used to ensure pretrial punishment or to deter others from lawbreaking.

    Parent
    How uncommon are kickbacks (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 09, 2015 at 01:09:02 PM EST
    from bail bondsmen to judges?

    Perhaps I'm just being cynical?

    My only experience with bail bonds comes from Stephanie Plum novels.  lol.

    Parent

    Rare as hens' teeth, I would venture to guess (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peter G on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    or we would see more criminal prosecutions of bondsmen and judges, which would be the inevitable result of the situation you posit, Mr. N.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    i have no thoughts on the bail amount except that it seems high, so i asked you for more info, if you had it, to put your comment's header into context

    i did read the whole article

    maybe the bail is somehow cumulative, since there are eight misdemeanors?

    also wondered why juvenile court, if he's 18 - is that a Maryland thing?

    Parent

    Additional reading if you are so inclined (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 08, 2015 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    While I could not find Maryland's bail schedule online, these two from CA are illustrative I think in highlighting my original point as listed in the heading of my first post.

    Superior Court of CA, Ventura County

    Superior Court of CA, Orange County

    Parent
    thanks for this as well (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:16:31 PM EST
    i hope someone with knowledge of the bail situation in Baltimore will weigh in

    the nonspecific comment from the Baltimore state's attorney's office (i guess that's Marilyn Mosby's office) simply alludes to keeping "the most violent demonstrators" off the street, with violence "still possible"

    the kid has been charged, not tried & convicted, so apparently confinement extends to those who are alleged to be "the most violent demonstrators"?

    Parent

    His stepfather made the following statement (none / 0) (#9)
    by chezmadame on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    "'By turning himself in, he also let me know he was growing as a man and he recognized what he did was wrong,' said Hawkins, who said he confronted his stepson after seeing him on TV during demonstrations Saturday."

    Is it possible that his bail was so high because he has admitted guilt?

    Parent

    Outdated Pretrial Detention (none / 0) (#11)
    by JanaM on Fri May 08, 2015 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    Money bonds are very regressive. DC abandoned them about 20 years ago based on the theory that your pocerty should not degermine your pretrial release status. However, release conditons can be very stringent and onerus (curfews, stay aways from areas as well as people, regular reporting to case workers and for drug testing) and violations of release can get you stepped back under the preventive detention provisions of the bail act.

    As I hope we all agree pretrial release status should be based on the defendant's reliabilty to return to court as directed, ability to obey pretrial court orders (e.g., stay aways), as well as the likelihood of danger to the community and/or witnesses. It should never be based on economic status.

    One question for Maryland bail experts. How much has to be put up in reality - isn't it 10 percent of the bond set? Do they use bondsmen still or is a percent just paid to the court? I know some put up their property.  And, of course, aren't motions filed to reduce bond?

    Parent

    Motions filed (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 08, 2015 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    to remove Mosby from the case.  

    Brace for "Mosby has been removed from the case" comments.

    what are the thoughts of people here (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    regarding the use of a special prosecutor whenever there's a chance that police officers may be indicted?

    my understanding is that this approach may be beneficial in its own right, given the need of prosecutors & police departments to work closely together on other cases

    maybe this question was roundly discussed in connection with the Ferguson events, which i did not follow closely at TL

    as for the motion to remove Mosby, that should not be at all surprising

    Parent

    Couple of things (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    In this last session of the MD legislature, there were 17 bills filed that would bring more transparency and accountability to police.  Most of those bills died in committee.

    One of the bills up for discussion, modeled on policies in Connecticut and Wisconsin, would have assigned prosecution of police-involved killings to Maryland's attorney general rather than local state's attorneys, who often works with police to prosecute civilian criminal cases.

    Another bill would have altered Maryland's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, which governs the administrative disciplinary process. For instance, the bill would have kept evidence collected during an internal disciplinary investigation out of officers' sight until after they were questioned.

    "The point is that police police themselves at the trial board and we get bad results," said Democratic Baltimore delegate Jill Carter, who authored the bill.

    Dayvon Love, the director of public policy for Baltimore advocacy group Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, says the changes to the Officers' Bill of Rights would alter a few things in a case like Gray's. Currently, law enforcement officers alleged to have used excessive force have 10 days to make a statement on the record; the bill would remove that provision, Love said. It would also create a spot for civilians on the three-member hearing board for disciplinary investigations.

    That bolded paragraph?  That's the "special prosecutor" bill - one the FOP vigorously opposed.  Now, apparently, they are singing a different tune.

    Maryland's police union is one of the strongest in the nation; just getting the bills through that did pass was a major accomplishment.

    Re: bail

    Almost 10 years ago, the state was sued by individuals who felt they had a constitutional right to legal representation at bail hearings; it wasn't enough that they could be assigned a public defender at trial.

    The state's top court ruled last September [2013] that having a lawyer at the hearings was a right under Maryland's constitution.

    It was not a popular finding in many quarters. A previous decision based on the state's public defender law was undone by the General Assembly, and Gov. Martin O'Malley initially expressed hope the court would reconsider the second ruling.

    But when Court of Appeals judges said they would not change the decision, the debate turned to how to implement it. Late in this year's session, the General Assembly approved funds for the judiciary to hire the lawyers.

    Since then, commissioners have been drilling, getting ready for July 1, when that money would be available to pay for 2,500 attorneys that the top judge of the District Court had been working to recruit. In Towson, Michael S. Charnasky, the administrative commissioner, had been pulling 60- and 70-hour weeks to get ready.

    Link

    As to setting bail, it's about as vague and subjective as you can imagine, within limits.  Here are a couple of links that contain some useful information: here and here.  [offered for the info therein only]

    Also, see this article, which also may be enlightening.

    From the article:

    Of the approximately 3,000 people in pretrial detention in Baltimore at any one time, nearly 200 are stuck in jail on bail of less than $5,000 and state lawmakers are now debating whether the long-established practice is the fairest way to decide who stays behind bars. Some defendants can't even post bail of $100.

    Supporters say Maryland's bail system works efficiently, allowing defendants who make bail to quickly return to their lives. Many find a bail bond company to put up the money for them -- as long as they can pay a fee. That company is responsible for making sure the defendant shows up for trial.

    But advocates for change argue that it is unfair to link freedom with finances, and a state task force recently recommended doing away with bail in favor of a system that evaluates only whether a defendant is a danger to the public or a flight risk.

    Four states have made similar changes, as has Washington, D.C., where defendants face a judge with just two options: release or confinement. Other states, like Maryland, continue to use bail bondsmen.



    Parent
    When I checked out the state aG website (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:40:39 PM EST
    yesterday, I found no indication the AG's prosecutes in lieu of the local prosecutors office, although this an AG function in CA. For example, if a local prosecutororial office employee is suspected of committing a crime or if the DA's office declines to prosecute a case but the AG issues it.

    Parent
    Like I said before... (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Fri May 08, 2015 at 06:43:34 PM EST
    the people who want Mosby removed might want to be careful what they wish for.  There could be another Angela Corey waiting in the wings.

    Parent
    at the same time, (none / 0) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    i think it would be professional malpractice for the defense attorneys not to request Mosby's removal

    ABA,"Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor," Rule 3.8(f):

    The prosecutor in a criminal case shall, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

    Maryland adopted the ABA's model rules almost 30 years ago

    in the emotionally fraught circumstances, & given her inexperience, Mosby's breach of ethics was perhaps understandable in the moment

    & yet with every passing day, it strikes me more & more as inflammatory & reprehensible, especially since she "refused" to "try the case in the media" -- after announcing the charges in a showboating press conference addressed in part to "demonstrators across America"

    YMMV

    Parent

    When was Mosby found ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Yman on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    in the emotionally fraught circumstances, & given her inexperience, Mosby's breach of ethics was perhaps understandable in the moment

    ... to have breached the MD code of ethics?

    You should let the MD Bar Association ethics commission know.

    Parent

    stalking me, again (none / 0) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    Or, just pointing out (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Yman on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    ... your claim that she violated the ethics rules is nothing more than your own opinion.

    But when you can't defend your own claims, go with something else, huh?

    Parent

    not quite, Einstein (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 09, 2015 at 10:57:18 PM EST
    your claim that she violated the ethics rules is nothing more than your own opinion

    read the motion, if you can - that will give you something to do besides stalking me & obsessively bedwetting over others' (alleged) "claims"

    sheesh - i deserve a better class of personal troll

    Parent

    Oh, sorry (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun May 10, 2015 at 08:41:17 AM EST
    Nothing more than your own opinion and an allegation from the defendant's lawyer(s), yet you state it as fact.

    For your sake, I hope you're actually trying to be funny.

    Parent

    stalking me, again (none / 0) (#27)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Yman on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    Still not evidence.

    But I can't blame you for not wanting to defend such silly, specious claims.

    Parent

    She read the charges. She urged (4.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    that there be no leaking from any quarters.  She stated her commitment to justice.

    In fact, it seems to me that what she did was in full conformity with that rule.  

    Parent

    I guess it could be used on an appeal? (none / 0) (#16)
    by McBain on Fri May 08, 2015 at 07:43:00 PM EST
    If so, they need to do it.

    I imagine a lot goes out the window in these high profile cases. DAs and judges act differently, because they know people/voters are watching. A special prosecutor might do the right thing, or might do what is in his/hers best interest.

    Parent

    Blackmail and threats designed to intimidate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Palli on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:27:58 PM EST
    not just Marilyn Mosely but prosecutors across the nation.

    Jon Swaine of the Guardian is writing about the individual Baltimore officers. Baltimore Lieutenant Brian Rice used his position to threaten `heads will roll' if officers did not arrest his ex-girlfriend's husband in March a couple of weeks before the death of Freddie Gray. Two years before he had publicly declared he would kill his ex-wife's then boyfriend and conduct a campaign of harassment against him. BPD basically put him on desk detail a couple of weeks then put him back leading other officers.

    Like Tim Loehmann the Cleveland PO who killed 12 year old Tamir Rice, there have been several red flags to indicate this man is not stable-no I'm not a doctor but I have a brain-and he should not have been on duty. Read the article and tell me he is one of Baltimore's finest.

    http://tinyurl.com/mqhzul8

    Parent

    Because Officer Nero (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jack203 on Fri May 08, 2015 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    Is in a position of power to blackmail and intimidate Mosby and prosecutors around the nation?

    Parent
    Motion for Recusal or Dismissal (none / 0) (#19)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    Motion for Recusal or Dismissal

    Just filed -- Oh My

    "Oh My"? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Was it filed by lions and tigers and bears, too?

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:19:06 PM EST
    it was a couple of hours ago.  And noted then upthread.

    Parent
    And noted ??? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:37:18 PM EST
    And noted then upthread

    Are you trying to take credit for your failure to post a link accidentally or on purpose???

    Parent

    I don't think she's going anywhere (none / 0) (#25)
    by McBain on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    I doubt she'll be removed.  

    I'm not sure about the knife.  Seems like there's a gray area (no pun) about spring loaded knives in the state of Maryland and the city of Baltimore.  

    Parent

    little banging Donta (none / 0) (#33)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 10:38:34 PM EST
    Exhibit 6 * Page 103 * Affidavit:

    Gray continued to be combative in the police wagon .... During transport [Donta] Allen advised investigators that he could hear Gray banging against the walls of the wagon compartment. It was Allen's belief that Gray was intentionally trying to injure himself.


    It's a free country, but (4.00 / 4) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 09, 2015 at 01:25:25 AM EST
    do you realize how you're embarrassing yourself?

    Once it's written & posted, it's out there forever, you own it.......permanently.

    (maybe if you plead your case to Jeralyn she will delete it, out of kindness, (or pity)

    Parent

    Hey NYS (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 06:57:29 AM EST
    you're embarrassing yourself?

    Do you realize that you are the one embarrassing yourself???

    It's all in the Motion as filed and that Motion is now part of the public domain.

    If you have a problem with that talk to Jayne Miller and Donta -- both of whom made sure to put it there.

    Parent

    Uncle Chip, are your arm chair quests for justice (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Palli on Sat May 09, 2015 at 07:17:20 AM EST
    so flighty that you have you have forgotten all about Dorian Johnson?  

    Parent
    You mean this (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 09:41:54 AM EST
    Of course, that Dorian, but read more than NBC (none / 0) (#46)
    by Palli on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    Think Progress story May 8
    The young man walking with Michael Brown when Darren Wilson killed Michael was arrested 1 day after he filed civil suit against Ferguson PD.  "St L Co.Police said they reported to the scene after they received a tip about a "large group possibly with firearms." But he was also reportedly suspected of illegal narcotics, because he was holding a drink believed to be a mix of cough medicine and other illegal drugs. The mixture later tested negative for narcotics." The Circuit Court refused the case. "Johnson was nonetheless arrested on misdemeanor charges of "resisting or interfering with arrest/detention/stop." The charging document stated that Dorian, "ran toward PO N.S. and demanded that PO N.S. remove his hands from [his brother & college student] Demonte Johnson." Another brother has also been arrested but the bench warrant used has been found nonexistent and he has  been released.
    http://tinyurl.com/optzoac

    From an interview with Dorian from jail. http://tinyurl.com/pkekzxd (Don't read the comments unless you are considering renouncing your Am. citizenship.)

    If the 6 cops can charge the city damages for their traumatic experience being charged in the Freddie Gray murder at this stage...then no one should question Dorian Johnson's lawsuit after months of police harassment.

    Parent

    Wait - I thought you said it wasn't (3.50 / 4) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 08:53:27 AM EST
    Allen in the van, Chip...you couldn't possibly be trying to have it both ways, could you?

    Here's the thing: the motion bears discussing, but your approach to every single issue and detail in this case has been confontational, combative, accusatory, and immature.  You've gotten facts wrong, you've twisted information and failed to respond to the challenges to the contents of your comments.  I suspect that, in the end, you think that people walk away from discussing things with you because your brilliant legal and other insight and analysis won, but really, people walk away from you because you're an a-hole.

    I no more trust that you're getting it right as you cherry-pick the motion than I do that you have any interest in an honest and thoughtful discussion.  

    I will read the motion, and for sure I will have some thoughts about it, but I am now considering whether I want to expend any more mental energy playing whack-a-mole with you and your exclamation points and question marks - not because you're right, but for the reasons stated above.

    Parent

    That's a laugh (4.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Jack203 on Sat May 09, 2015 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    coming from someone who consistently refers to those you disagree with as "cockroaches".  

    I, for one, am not going to apologize for not being far left on every issue.  Furthermore, these racially charged arrests are only making the right stronger, because as we will almost certainly find out. The facts are looking to be on their side, and those clamoring for a political lynching will almost certainly be wrong.

    And boy has your tone changed on this case when you were worried about the rioters affecting your own life and were desperate for police protection.  You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife.

    Parent

    I may have used the term once, and it (4.67 / 3) (#59)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    was in reference to a very ugly comment; everyone has limits.

    You and others keep characterizing these charges as "racially charged," or "racially motivated," but you fail to address the fact that three of the defendants are black.

    I don't know who these people are whom you claim are clamoring for a political lynching, well, except for those who seem to want Mosby to be the one subject to such a thing.  I certainly have not made any comments about what, if anything, these defendants "deserve," or indicated they should be tried or convicted if the evidence and the facts don't warrant it.  My main focus has been making the effort to address what is actually known, to provide some local perspective and, when people - Chip - attempt to substitute wild-a$$ed speculation for fact, to call them on it and ask them to address it.  Seems rational to me, but I think it annoys Chip.

    So...you think it's unreasonable to worry about rioting in the city where I work?  I don't recall being or saying that I was "desperate for police protection," ever, so, it seems that, like Chip, you've decided to trade in exaggeration, manipulation and accusation.

    I guess that works for you, but it's grown really tiresome.

    I stated quite clearly, in response to McBain's hyperbolic descriptions of what "liberals" want, that I don't want anyone paying a price for something he or she didn't do.  I don't see anything to be gained by sending someone to prison to set an example - that's not justice.  And it's not fair.

    So, my suggestion would be to stop projecting onto me things I haven't said, don't believe and am not advocating.  It would make it so much easier to have a discussion, but I'm no longer sure people like you actually want to have one.

    Parent

    Anne (3.20 / 5) (#40)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 09:44:25 AM EST
    You have had to eat your words so many times in this case that you should really step away from the table.

    Parent
    You wish...but thanks for the laugh. (4.25 / 8) (#43)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    And I'm not the only one laughing, trust me.

    Parent
    The 5 is for moral support, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 09, 2015 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    I can't stand going near these threads.  Freddie's dead and these guys defend his killing.

    Recently, someone sneered that Talkleft was a "defense blog, so why weren't they defending" the defendant cops?

    I'd say it's more than a "defense blog."  A larger perspective is that this blog is a defense of the little guy against the State.  Occasionally jerks get defended but by and large they're not official jerks.  They're ordinary citizen/subject jerks.

    Guess what, guys, the cops are the jagged edge of the State.  They are protected by "policy," "procedure," lazy or complicit journalism, and judges who believe their every word - or pretend to.

    Cops have been "making examples" of arrestees (citizens) for decades.  It's about time they were made examples of themselves.  

    Not a fair position at all but really where I am on this.  What's funny is that defending the cops will probably turn on "technicalities."  In any other context the cop-lovers would be screaming about how wrong that was.

    Parent

    While I appreciate the support, I don't (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    agree that anyone should be made an example of to satisfy a desire for police to be held accountable.  If the facts and evidence support it, and a judge/jury agree, fine - but a kangaroo court serves no one, and just further undermines the process, for everyone.  One day, that could be you, or me, or someone we know and love, and I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of paying for something I didn't do just because a bunch of people before me did it and got away with it.

    That being said, I don't agree with elevating police to a place where they get special treatment, either.

    This is going to be like trying to walk a tightrope of broken glass in bare feet, with no safety net.  With the whole world watching, it's going to be a real test of everyone's skills and their commitment to a fair process.  I hope everyone involved rises to the occasion, but I can't say I feel overly optimistic about it.

    Parent

    has anyone in the two Freddie Gray threads (none / 0) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    advocated doing this?

    I don't agree with elevating police to a place where they get special treatment . . .

    if so, i missed that

    or are you simply presenting the counterpoint to this?

    I don't agree that anyone should be made an example of to satisfy a desire for police to be held accountable.


    Parent
    It seemed like the obvious counterpoint, (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:42:34 PM EST
    but apparently it wasn't obvious to you.

    I wanted it clear that my preference is for an even playing field (and no, that doesn't mean I think this is a game).

    But thanks for "asking."

    Parent

    it was a question (2.00 / 1) (#65)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:46:54 PM EST
    not a "question"

    & your answer to my question apparently is "no"

    thank you

    Parent

    Oh, bite me, Addams Family. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    I clearly stated it was counterpoint, expressed a desire for fairness and an even playing field, but that's not good enough for you.

    I put "asking" in quotes, because there's been a lot of agenda and accusation being shilled here in the form of questions, and one thing common to those questions is the utter lack of any personal opinion being expressed.

    So, instead of serving as the self-appointed dissector of what others say, how about putting yourself on the line and taking your turn in the hot seat?

    Parent

    wth? (none / 0) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 09, 2015 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    i asked you a question: asked & answered

    if you wanted me to state my opinion, then i don't know why, since you already know what i think, & we agreed to disagree (see Freddie Gray thread #1, comments 158 & 159)

    i can do all these things at once:

    1. observe that Marilyn Mosby is a grandstanding, showboating, mob-appeasing demagogue
    2. want the 6 officers (a.k.a. the defendants) to get a fair trial with a vigorous defense
    3. want justice to be served in this case
    4. let the rule of law decide what justice will be in this case

    yeah, i know -- wildly controversial for a blog devoted to the politics of crime & hosted by a defense attorney!

    Parent
    Ohhh, ... that's all (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Yman on Sat May 09, 2015 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    Well, except for the part where you accused Mosby of violating the MD ethics rules.

    Parent
    Judging (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    by historical numbers it appears that the police have been elevated to this place, not officially, but with huge gobs of benefits of the doubt from the system that are never offered to poor, minority and other disenfranchised.

    Even the mere fact that these charges are so controversial indicates the bar is somehow set higher for assigning culpability to LEO.

    Suppose a couple of rednecks caught a suspected chicken thief, hogtied him, threw in the back of the pickup and delivered a dying man to the Sheriff's office would charges be warranted? Would they be controversial? If Justice is truly equal what exactly is the difference?

    Parent

    The bar is higher (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Sat May 09, 2015 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    Police do get held to a different standard in some situations.... like the use of deadly force. They also make great witnesses and know how to give statements after killing or injuring someone.  Those are some of reasons why it's hard to convict a cop.

    Just don't tell me police brutality is common.  Don't tell me it's a bigger problem for the black community than gang and drug related violence.

    Cops often get the benefit of the doubt but  the last thing they want to do, besides getting killed, is to lose their jobs or pensions. They want to avoid hurting or killing someone when possible.  The media and special interest groups  love to make you believe there's an epidemic of police bad behavior.  Don't be mislead.  

    Parent

    We actually don't know (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 09, 2015 at 10:09:30 PM EST
    ...whether or not police brutality is "common." There are no reliable statistics because police don't keep them, and individual victims have no way of adding their experiences to any list.  What we DO know is that there is more of it than is reported.

    As we have seen, unless there is a video of an officer beating a subject, especially s Black man, there is no possibility of a complaint being sustained.  Even WITH a video, such as the several showing Oscar Grant shot to death while lying face down and handcuffed, or six cops kicking the crap out of Rodney King, it's hard to get a conviction.

    If a video turned up of a CIVILIAN shooting a prone subject in the back, First Degree Murder would be a slam dunk.  But "Reserve Deputy" Hayes, who did exactly that, got bail and went to the Bahamas.

    Now that virtually everyone carries a video camera in a pocket or purse, there are dozens of videos showing inappropriate police action.  Do you believe that only started when iPhones appeared?  It seems more likely to me that it was always going on but the video revolution brought it into the light.

    Is it your opinion that video cameras cause police brutality, or merely record it?  Here's a link.  Enjoy.

    Parent

    My opinion is gullible people watch (none / 0) (#84)
    by McBain on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:55:28 PM EST
    videos of Walter Scott, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and think the cops just murdered a completely innocent person. They make up their minds based on 15 seconds of video and don't care what happened before the incident was recorded. Some of those people protest.  Some post their opinions here in TL.  

    "Do you believe that only started when iPhones appeared?"

    I believe there is probably less police brutality today than ever before.  Not just because of camera phones but because society tends to get better. Unfortunately, media segments about things getting better doesn't make for good ratings.  

     

    Parent

    Wow. Just wow. (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 10, 2015 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    Are you suggesting that unless he is a "completely innocent person" the police are allowed to kill a subject?

    How does a cop know that the person he is killing is not a "completely innocent person" before he is arrested, charged and tried?  I thought the old standard was "innocent until proven guilty," but you obviously reject that Constitutional guarantee.

    What was Tamir Rice's crime?  Being 12 years old?  Should the few cents profit on an untaxed cigarette carry the death penalty for Eric Garner?  How about John Crawford, shot for picking up a toy gun off the shelf in a Walmart?

    What you are suggesting is appalling.  That there should be no consequences for the use of deadly force.  Remember power corrupts, and the absolute power to kill without consequences corrupts absolutely.  Maybe you should rent "Serpico"again.  There have been endless exposures of crooked cops, most recently on citizen videos.

    Parent

    Not even close (none / 0) (#100)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    You completely botched your analysis of my last post. Based on that, you might be one of the many people who confuse homicide with murder.

    Parent
    Come on now (none / 0) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    we all know the difference between murder and homicide. Just another man of straw argument to cover your willingness to brush off innocent citizens being "homicided" by police as "no harm no foul".

    Parent
    Did you even bother to read (none / 0) (#118)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    Repack Rider's post, which I responded to?

    "we all know the difference between murder and homicide"

    That's not true at all.  There have been discussions in TL about that very topic.  If you want to accuse someone of the straw man argument, go read Repack Rider's post.  

    Parent

    I didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 10, 2015 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    Repack Rider's post, which I responded to?

    "we all know the difference between murder and homicide"

    I never said any such thing, and have no opinion on the matter, yet you cited me as a source.  

    Why are you blaming me for your reading disability?

    Parent

    I actually (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 03:59:51 PM EST
    saw no evidence of this murder vs. homicide man of straw anywhere in RR's post.

    Parent
    You misunderstood (none / 0) (#120)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    Perhaps that was my fault.  

    This was Repack's silly staw man...
    "What you are suggesting is appalling.  That there should be no consequences for the use of deadly force."

    When, what I actually said, was...
    "Police do get held to a different standard in some situations.... like the use of deadly force."

    My murder/homicide comment comes from people in TL not understanding that when a ME rules a death to be a homicide, it doesn't mean it must be a murder.  

    Parent

    Clarification please (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 10, 2015 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    This was Repack's silly staw man...
    "What you are suggesting is appalling.  That there should be no consequences for the use of deadly force."

    When, what I actually said, was...
    "Police do get held to a different standard in some situations.... like the use of deadly force."

    I hope the standard you want them held to is a lot higher than the standard ordinary citizens are held to.  Police are allowed to carry and use weapons that are illegal in civilian hands.

    If a citizen were caught on video shooting a subject in the back while the subject is lying face down on the ground, would he be charged with a crime?  What would be the appropriate charge for shooting a defenseless person in the back?  Should that charge be different if the shooter is a police officer, trained and supposedly capable of handling highly-charged situations.  

    How should the charge be different, and why?

    Parent

    You made a silly accusation about me (none / 0) (#128)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    "What you are suggesting is appalling.  That there should be no consequences for the use of deadly force."

    Own up to it and I'll answer your question.  

    Parent

    What "people" would that be? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sun May 10, 2015 at 05:27:17 PM EST
    My murder/homicide comment comes from people in TL not understanding that when a ME rules a death to be a homicide, it doesn't mean it must be a murder.  


    Parent
    Actually, murder... (none / 0) (#133)
    by unitron on Mon May 11, 2015 at 05:37:35 AM EST
    ...is a subset of homicide.

    Which means all murders are homicides, but some other homicides are not murder.

    Parent

    Might want to take a look at this, (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    which appeared in today's print edition of the Baltimore Sun:

    Freddie Gray among many suspects who do not get medical care from Baltimore police

    From the article:

    From June 2012 through April 2015, correctional officers at the Baltimore City Detention Center have refused to admit nearly 2,600 detainees who were in police custody, according to state records obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request.

    In those records, intake officers in Central Booking noted a wide variety of injuries, including fractured bones, facial trauma and hypertension. Of the detainees denied entry, 123 had visible head injuries, the third most common medical problem cited by jail officials, records show.

    The jail records redacted the names of detainees, but a Sun investigation found similar problems among Baltimore residents and others who have made allegations of police brutality.

    [...]

    The Sun's examination of more than 100 lawsuits against officers -- in which the city paid more than $6 million in court judgments and settlements -- found that dozens of residents accused police of inflicting severe injuries during questionable arrests and disregarding appeals for medical attention.

    Such problems have damaged relations between police and residents, according to officials and community leaders. On Friday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced a broad civil rights investigation into the police department, a move designed to address the "serious erosion of public trust."

    I think most people watching videos of cops killing people just want to know what happened, would actually be relieved to find out there was a valid reason for it, because to find out otherwise means having to come to grips with the reality that we have members of law enforcement who would just as soon shoot to kill - or strangle someone to death - than find other, better, ways to deal with the citizens they are supposed to be both serving and protecting.  

    Try as I might, I can't think of anything I've learned about the Freddie Gray arrest that would lead me to believe he did anything prior to his apprehension and arrest that makes his death okay.  But based on some of your exceedingly callous comments in this area, it appears that for you, not all lives are created equal, and you seem uncomfortably cavalier about justifying police-involved deaths.

    It almost seems as if you make up your mind as soon as you see a police uniform.


    Parent

    A few things, Anne (none / 0) (#122)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    "I think most people watching videos of cops killing people just want to know what happened, would actually be relieved to find out there was a valid reason for it"

    Maybe that's true but it seems like a significant % want the cops to be guilty.  

    "But based on some of your exceedingly callous comments in this area, it appears that for you, not all lives are created equal"

    Can you expand on that?  Who's lives do I think have more or less value and back it up with something like a quote of mine.  

    Right now, people think I'm a cop apologist. During Zimmerman I must have been a racist or NRA guy.  During Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox I must have been blinded by their beauty.  For Kobe Bryant and O.J. it was obviously their athletic process and celebrity.  

    At some point people will realize I'm a pro defense guy.  Innocent until proven guilty. Race, profession, sex or economic status doesn't matter.... I care about the right to a fair trial.

    Parent

    It could be your name, McBain... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mr Natural on Sun May 10, 2015 at 08:57:47 PM EST
    You may want to reread your Evan Hunter collection.  I don't remember any of the 87th precinct cops running around shooting down unarmed citizens or laughing about nickel rides.


    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    us suckers should ignore all "out of context" video  while the non-gullible people ignore the bodies in the streets, back of police cars, in the stores in the parks. Nothing to see here folks, just normal police procedure. It's just the rubes and their misconstrued video's who are causing the problems.

    Police brutality up to and including murder has always occurred, also police officers have always been maximum given "benefit of the doubt" by the Justice system. Certain segments of society have always known this. Smart phone video and social media have just added millions of pairs of "lying eyes" to the equation.
               

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#117)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 03:36:04 PM EST
    "us suckers should ignore all "out of context" video"

    You suckers should stop being suckers.  Think about the big picture and wait for more evidence before making up your minds.  

    Parent

    6 cops have had special treatment (none / 0) (#70)
    by Palli on Sat May 09, 2015 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    They turned themselves in but unlike the young man mentioned previously, they were charged, without the prerequisite inspections that humiliate "regular" prisoners jailed then released quickly when they met a lower bail than many demonstrators. And that is just the beginning...of this process.

    Parent
    Optimistic (none / 0) (#88)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:49:57 AM EST
    Overall, I am optimistic that what can be proven, the facts in the case, will all come out. And that one side will be very disappointed with the outcome. Criminal justice system is slow, and our news media leads us to a rush to judgement, but eventually, the facts should lead to a just conclusion

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#57)
    by The Addams Family on Sat May 09, 2015 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    Cops have been "making examples" of arrestees (citizens) for decades.  It's about time they were made examples of themselves. Not a fair position at all but really where I am on this.

    that's an extraordinary admission - thanks for your candor

    Parent

    What's so "extraordinary"? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    Deterrence - by way of "setting examples" - has always been an objective of criminal justice systems.

    Parent
    I think the overall question is this: (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 09, 2015 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    Can we ever be considered a truly fair and just society, when we continue to tolerate and excuse the disproportionate policing, punishment and even occasional killing of our most vulnerable and marginalized members by those we've placed in authority, simply because the latter so happens to carry a badge and gun?

    Perhaps those who are so privileged to serve in authority, as well as their knee-jerk defenders both here and elsewhere, ought to pay better heed to the wisdom of Jane Addams, who offered that the essence of immorality is our tendency to make exceptions of ourselves.

    In seeking to counter and combat police brutality and misconduct, I don't believe it serves any useful purpose to make an example of individual law enforcement officers and officials, simply for its own sake.

    But given the mounting evidence of abusive and even criminal behavior by those who are ostensibly there to protect and to serve, it's quite apparent that a significant number of them have all too readily conflated for their own immediate purposes the term "benefit of doubt" with "carte blanche."

    Therefore, I'm no longer willing to grant police officers that benefit of doubt when regarding the conduct of their official duties, because the very concept of liberty and justice for all now demands that they forfeit its expectation as a matter of course.

    So, while I'll continue to generally trust the police for now anyway, I also duly reserve for myself my rights as a citizen to seek a public verification and accountability of their performance, whenever and wherever I might see fit, and to further demand an appropriate redress for any and all such excesses when and if necessary.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    while you are absolutely correct here;
    In seeking to counter and combat police brutality and misconduct, I don't believe it serves any useful purpose to make an example of individual law enforcement officers and officials, simply for its own sake.
    it is always is painted that way by the apologists. It's always a good cop "wanting just to go home to their family" being crucified for the sins of the "few bad apples" who, barring video, never seem to stand accused.

    Parent
    So, therefore -- what, exactly? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:28:46 AM EST
    FlJoe: "[I]t is always is painted that way by the apologists. It's always a good cop 'wanting just to go home to their family' being crucified for the sins of the 'few bad apples' who, barring video, never seem to stand accused."

    My faith in both the rule of law and its due process is absolute. If the State's Attorney office in Baltimore is determined to make an example of someone in the local law enforcement community, then it must be accomplished in full accordance with that law, with proper legal purpose and procedure -- and not merely because lots of people are pi$$ed off at the cops for whatever reason, the media is circling like a school of sharks, and city officials decide that they need a fall guy or six.

    Personally, I'm proud of State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby for confronting the issue head-on and bringing charges in this case. But that said, we need to remember always that the burden is wholly upon her office to prove those six officers guilty of those charges beyond any reasonable doubt, and not upon the six defendants to prove themselves innocent.

    I think that sometimes, in the heated passions of the moment, we've tended to forget that. I really don't care about police apologists and what they might say, because it's been my experience that they'll spew as they damned well please in any event.

    Rather, belief in the rule of law requires that we at all times seek justice, and not vengeance, in our collective search for the truth. And if criminal proceedings in this case result in a determination that the proper remedy should be sought in civil court, then as a citizen I am obliged to respect it. The law isn't perfect and foolproof, but it's the best system we have in place at the moment.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    I am just trying to say I lack the same level of "faith" that you have in the justice system. In the abstract we have a close to ideal system. In reality there are huge forces that work to pervert it, the apologists being among them.

    Parent
    i think it's safe to say (none / 0) (#86)
    by The Addams Family on Sun May 10, 2015 at 02:02:34 AM EST
    that we all respect & admire the author of this statement:

    The Constitution is not a rough draft. You don't get to edit or erase parts of it to delete rights for an unpopular or hated defendant.

    The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of the citizen accused from the awesome powers of the Government. It was not enacted to protect the rights of crime victims.

    The presumption of innocence is a bedrock of our criminal justice system that applies to the person charged with a crime, not the victim of a crime.

    When partisan politics threatens the Bill of Rights, progressives especially need to get their priorities straight: The Bill of Rights must prevail. Those who disagree do a disservice to the word "progressive." Their backwards thinking is just the opposite.

    Those who are willing to throw the Constitution out the window because they don't like a particular defendant, or because of their moral or political objections to what they subjectively believe was going through his mind, or because they like a particular victim, can be called a lot of things. Progressive is not one of them.



    Parent
    Well, good thing no one is ... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Yman on Sun May 10, 2015 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    ... suggesting we throw out the Constitution, erase parts of it, or deny the defendants in this case any of the protections afforded other criminal defendants.

    Next.

    Parent

    can't edit the Constitution? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Palli on Sun May 10, 2015 at 09:18:19 AM EST
    What the hell did the NRA do?

    Parent
    Jayne Miller (none / 0) (#37)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 08:21:41 AM EST
    Per the Motion --

    Baltimore reporter Jayne Miller is a witness and  her notes have been subpoenaed.

    The Washington Post got the identification of the prisoner in the van wrong, so it'll be interesting to learn how Jayne Miller found Donta Allen.

    Gosh -- who else close to the investigation and Miller could have told her???

    Mosby needed new evidence to counter the claim that Gray was trying to hurt himself. So then "poof" comes the Miller interview of the witness recanting the night before charges are announced. Miller provided the new evidence that Mosby needed.

    Miller may face criminal charges for creating evidence in a criminal case. If she hasn't lawyered up yet, she better do so fast before all the lawyers in Baltimore get taken.

    This case is going to be a lawyer-fest.

    What (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    is with your fascination with Jayne Miller? She is a bit player in this tragedy.

    Since when did journalists get charged with doing their jobs?

    Miller may face criminal charges for creating evidence in a criminal case.
    That's a real howler. Sure lets round up every reporter who ever interviewed a possible witness to a crime, all those interviews with Dorian Johnson must still trouble you.

    In your rush to absolve the police you have seized on the highly improbable "self-inflicted" scenario based on a single leaked statement, anything else that counters your narrative becomes a crime or a lie.

    Remember once the police revealed the existence of this unidentified witness every local and many national news hounds were on the trail. All journalists "work" Ms> Miller may have got lucky this time, but there is little doubt Donato would have popped up sooner rather then later.

    You are actually conducting a trial in your own mind

    Mosby needed new evidence to counter the claim that Gray was trying to hurt himself. So then "poof" comes the Miller interview of the witness recanting the night before charges are announced. Miller provided the new evidence that Mosby needed.
    Bizarre.

    Parent
    She (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    She is a bit player in this tragedy.

    She made herself a big player when she did the Donta Allen interview the night before the charges.

    Did you even bother to read the Motion -- Section II features her prominently.

    Remember once the police revealed the existence of this unidentified witness every local and many national news hounds were on the trail.

    And where did that trail lead to??? the pillow she shares with Mosby's chief prosecutor???

    That's not a conflict of interest to you???

    The police were trying to protect the witness. Even the WaPo was trying to protect the witness keeping him unnamed and unidentified.

    And then comes Miller who outs him thus putting his life and his testimony at risk.

    And you're okay with that???

    What if the shoe were on your other foot???

    Parent

    You gotta love all the "questions" (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Sat May 09, 2015 at 03:59:05 PM EST
    Happens whenever someone has theories and strong opinions about what they think happened, but have absolutely no facts or evidence to support it.

    Parent
    Most (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    good journalists have many sources in many different places, among them lovers , fishing buddies, once and future business partners and on and on. Some of them are even on the police force. Which LEO leaked Donata's statement to which reporter? There must be some kind of COI there, right?

    If

    The police were trying to protect the witness.
    why did they leak his statement in the first place? Pretty incompetent if you ask me, if his testimony was so important why not save it for the GJ?

    So many questions. So few coherent answers from the apologists.

    Parent

    save it for the GJ??? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    why did they leak his statement in the first place?

    Ohhh please. By this point in the Ferguson investigation the critical evidence and statements and autopsy were all out on the table.

    Mosby on the other hand wants it all hidden under the control of her sly little hands -- and you're fine with that???

    So I guess you don't want to see the knife either or know if it's illegal or not???

    Do you like living in the dark??? Turn a light on sometime unless you are afraid of what you might see.

    if his testimony was so important why not save it for the GJ?

    You're kidding, right!!! You know the answer to that.

    What Donta told the investigators was never going to get to the GJ. Mosby controls what the GJ sees and hears and Donta's statements to the homicide investigators would never have been seen or heard there.  They were due to be buried by her office.

    Miller's interview with Donta was intended to be  front and center in the GJ room replacing what Donta told the homicide investigators.

    These Motions however have now derailed Mosby's corrupt little scheme and exposed her for what she is.

    Parent

    Why didn't the Motion raise the (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Sat May 09, 2015 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    Chip-asserted "fact" that Donta Allen wasn't the other prisoner in the van?  I notice you have dropped that talking point in favor of attacking both Miller and Mosby over Allen's statements.

    Like Ferguson, the investigation in Baltimore began immediately, even before Gray died; that the procedures here are different from how things are handled in Ferguson is immaterial.  

    You have no idea what will or won't be put before the GJ in this case - and you likely won't know because it's not a public event.

    You obviously do not understand the function of a grand jury.  It is not a trial, but held for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to support the charges, and if so, to hand up indictments.  It could also indict on lesser charges.  It is possible some charges will not result in indictments at all.  Whatever the outcome, it will not take 3 months to reach it.  I'm sure that will trigger another question mark-riddled and exclamation point-laden outpouring of conspiracy theories and charges of corruption.  Golly, we have so much to look forward to.

    Unless you are privy to Jayne Miller's thoughts, you have no basis for making the assertion as to what her interview was or was not intended to do.

    Likewise, you have no basis for asserting what Mosby is or isn't thinking, or what she does or doesn't want.

    Your non-stop accusations of lying on the part of prosecutors, and Mosby specifically, and your ongoing characterization of Mosby as unethical, corrupt and evil are close to grounds for booting your hysterical butt out of here.

    Oh, and you have used up your monthly allotment of question marks and exclamation points.

    Parent

    Bon Appetite (1.50 / 4) (#79)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat May 09, 2015 at 08:26:11 PM EST
    Another post and more words from Anne to fill up that plate that she has been eating from.

    Bon Appetite --

    Parent

    Oh, good...I see you don't know (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    French, either...not knowing stuff, though, never gets in your way, does it?

    Guess you have, as usual, no answer for any of the challenges to the so-called facts you posted.

    Parent

    Okay -- (none / 0) (#97)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    I plead guilty to reading the Washington Post and giving credence to it.

    I'll read it with more skepticism from now on. Thanks for alerting me -- though belatedly, afterall I did give you multiple opportunities to correct the Miller story and you couldn't, wouldn't and didn't.

    Now the question for you:

    Which Donta Allen was in the back of the van --

    1] the Donta Allen who spoke to investigators telling them that it sounded like Freddie Gray was trying to injure himself in the back of the van???

    or

    2] the Donta Allen who spoke to Jayne Miller's microphone and camera sayin' it was just a little bangin' for about 4 seconds???

    Which of those two was in the back of the van???

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 10, 2015 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    I plead guilty to reading the Washington Post and giving credence to it.

    The first step in changing your life is recognizing your problem, which you have now done.  The WaPo has not been a credible source of information since Watergate.  It carries water for the craziest among us.  Huge shill for the invasion of Iraq.  Even I knew that the "WMD" were a lie, but the WaPo didn't catch up with me on that for several years.

    Where will you be looking for credible information in  the future?

    Parent

    Do (none / 0) (#104)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    you have any recommendations for credible information that everyone should be able to trust??

    Parent
    In 2003 (none / 0) (#109)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    There was ONE source of information that proved to be exceedingly accurate about the run-up to war, the website DailyKos.  Before Colin Powell had even finished lying to the UN Security Council, DK had busted him as a liar and identified the source of his "latest intel" as a Masters thesis written ten years earlier.  DK identified the WMD as as lie, and published the story about Mr. Bush telling several senators in 2002 that they were going to invade Iraq, a decision that had already been made, and only waited for the excuse.

    That would be "journalism," which the WaPo, a propaganda arm of the US government, had failed to do.  The Internet allows us to check the accuracy of reports.  DK is considerably more accurate than the WaPo.

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    I trust none of them. True journalism has essentially disappeared from view, what little remains is hidden under tons of info-tainment garbage.

    Parent
    none of them??? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    I trust none of them

    -- not even the Baseball box scores???

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    I need an excuse for my failures in fantasy baseball leagues.

    Parent
    Maybe it was the Donta Allen who (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    was trying to ingratiate himself with police and leverage his help for his own benefit.

    Maybe it was the Donta Allen who kinda liked all the attention, the television coverage, being treated like he was important by famous media people.

    For what it's worth, my impression of Allen right from the beginning was that this was someone who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

    The end result, I think, is that he's more or less impeached himself; he's not useful to either side, as near as I can tell.

    Parent

    a cigarette (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 11:38:31 AM EST
    Maybe it was the Donta Allen who was trying to ingratiate himself with police and leverage his help for his own benefit.

    He was arrested for stealing one cigarette.

    No one at booking was going to draw up paperwork to charge him for that. His penalty for that was a free van ride to booking and a little walk back home.

    he's not useful to either side, as near as I can tell.

    Except that his statements to investigators have more weight and more consequences if he backs away from them as it's a crime to lie to investigators while it is not a crime to lie to the press, the camera, the microphone, the public, or Jayne Miller.

    He'll have to contemplate that before he raises his right hand.

    Parent

    I could swear that last week, you (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    were questioning the fact that there was no record of his arrest, read all kinds of nefarious things into that, used it to "prove" that it wasn't Allen in the back of the van - and now you're accepting that it was him, but downplaying his entire encounter with police and appear to have even provided a reason why it was that he wasn't processed.

    I guess that's the Chip version of saying, "oops, I was wrong."

    What was that you were saying about eating words?  

    Bon appétit, buddy.

    Parent

    arrest (2.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    you were questioning the fact that there was no record of his arrest

    So is there a record of an arrest or not??? ... waiting ...

    I guess you missed the part where Freddie said that he "wasn't processed" but taken right down to homicide???

    Do you remember hearing that or not???

    Some call that ride to the station an arrest.

    Some don't if they are not processed.

    Others like you don't know an arrest from a process and are just blabbering nonsense.

    Here is the corrected WaPo article:

    Prisoner in van heard "banging against walls."

    The writer corrected his identification mistake but note that he remained steadfast on the statements that Donta made to investigators from the affidavit.

    You on the other hand are incorrigible and incomprehensible and enjoy wallowing in your false accusations, prefabrications, and boneheaded obfuscations.

    That make you a perfect defender for Mosby&Co.

    Eat up and chew slowly -- you've earned every syllable.

    Parent

    No, I didn't miss the part where (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:13:40 PM EST
    Donta said he wasn't processed but taken down to homicide, because I'm the one who told you that.

    No paper, no record.

    This:

    You on the other hand are incorrigible and incomprehensible and enjoy wallowing in your false accusations, prefabrications, and boneheaded obfuscations.

    is the singularly most laughable thing you've said today; I'm not the one doing any of that, Chip, but it is a pretty accurate description of what you've been doing for days now.

    At this point, you're not even able to keep track of all the different things you've said, the many times you've contradicted yourself.  It's laughable, really.


    Parent

    Chip (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:28:53 AM EST
    you are correct, Mosby could outright ignore any and all of Donata's statements in her presentation to the GJ. That would eliminate the need for her to use all these machinations that you accuse her of. Unless you can come up with a plausible motive for this
    corrupt little scheme
    of hers your accusations sound pretty lame.

    Parent
    Should read (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    all journalists "work" their sources.....

    Parent
    You state that the police leaked the info (none / 0) (#80)
    by Redbrow on Sat May 09, 2015 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    About Donta Allen as though it is fact.

    What proof do you have to support your allegation?

    I think Mosby's team is the most likely source of the leak.

    I also think it is very likely they constructed that silly search warrant, that inexplicably mentions Allens statement, in order to get Allen to publicly recant his statement.

     

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:56:07 AM EST
    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.
    not exactly proof but better then you have
    I think Mosby's team is the most likely source of the leak.
    which appears to be based entirely on idle speculation.

    Parent
    Presented as speculation (none / 0) (#111)
    by Redbrow on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    And clearly stated as such.

    Notice how I did not try to deceive by passing it off as fact, like you did.

    Parent

    "Creating evidence in a criminal case": (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:19:17 AM EST
    is that in Maryland's stautes?

    Parent
    Creating evidence (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by JanaM on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    "Creating evidence in a criminal trial . . . "

    Not commenting on the specific discussion but this is a form of obstruction of justice.

    For instance, in the Jonbonet Ramsey case, a former reporter revealed that publications incuding his own were creating witnesses and evidence so they could have explosive headlines. They would call the tipline or police and give them a false lead - the publication would then ask the police if it was true about X (X being the fake tip) and get a "no comment" response. Thus leaving the publication to be able to print that the police refused to comment on X.  The FBI investigated this practice with the help of an appalled reporter but in the end it was decided not to pursue charges.

    I don't even want to think anything like this is possible outside the world of tabloid reporting.

    Parent

    Anything (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 09, 2015 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    is possible in the mad, mad world of Uncle Chip. In any case I would imagine after McCulloch and witness 40 the bar for actually "creating" evidence would be set very high.

    Parent
    Witness 40 (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Redbrow on Sat May 09, 2015 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    Isn't that the witness who was completely disregarded by McCulloch?

    He was doing his job in following every lead and reporting every witness as they came, including obvious liars who made things up like "hands up, don't shoot".

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 08:16:25 AM EST
    He disregarded her so much he allowed her to testify.

    The prosecutor is under no obligation to present "every lead" to the GJ, in fact it is common practice to limit the evidence to only "facts" that indicate the culpability of the target.

    However, it is my understanding that any officer of the court is obligated to not knowingly present any evidence or testimony that he or she knows to be false. McCulloch, by his own admission knew she lying. Say what you will about the "obvious" liars we heard from, at least they were actually at the scene.

    Parent

    You're right (2.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    about Witness 40 but McCulloch stands head and shoulders above Mosby with regard to competence and integrity.  

    He kept the public apprised of the basics of the Ferguson shooting and released the autopsy report within a week to the public.

    Do we have that autopsy report from Mosby yet???

    And while in the end the DOJ bureaucrats called what happened at the vehicle a struggle for the gun and assault on the officer, the furthest McCulloch went was to call it "an altercation" --which was a fair and honest evaluation given the evidence.

    He also pointed out that the DOJ bureaucrats had no more evidence than he did to make any accusation beyond his.    

    And he released all the evidence -- pro and con -- after the GJ decision as he had promised.

    After this Mosby/Baltimore fiasco people in St Louis, even Brown supporters, have a new found appreciation for McCulloch and how he fairly handled the Ferguson situation.

    Mosby should take a lesson.

    Parent

    So, now the Ferguson prosecutor's (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Anne on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    office and Bob McCulloch are the model and standard against which Baltimore should be measured?

    Great googly-moogly.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    Accuse  MCCulloch of knowingly presenting false testimony to a grand jury, sounds pretty rotten to me. What exactly do you accuse Mosby of? Name the crime Chip before you pass judgement.

    Parent
    Joe: I Accuse (none / 0) (#113)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    You just named it for me -- falsely accusing innocent people of non-existent crimes without due process of law.

    Parent
    You constantly (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by FlJoe on Sun May 10, 2015 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    refer to
    Mosby's corrupt little scheme
    sounds like an accusation to me. What has she done that is corrupt?
    I never accused MCCulloch of any crime, much less falsely, I called him out on the facts and judged him unethical. or rotten if you will.  We all make such judgments it's human nature

    Now you sit in judgement of Mosby, without clearly delineating her transgressions much less provide any actual facts. Then you berate and mock anyone who disagrees with your proclamations.

    Let me make it easy for you Chip.
     Fact: MCCulloch knowingly presented false testimony before the GJ.
    My assertion : McCulloch is unethical.

    Your turn.
    Fact: Mosby did _________
    Your assertion : Mosby is _
    ________  

    Just fill in the blanks Chip, it should be easy for you.        

    Parent

    judgment (2.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun May 10, 2015 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    I never accused MCCulloch of any crime, much less falsely, I called him out on the facts and judged him unethical. or rotten if you will.  We all make such judgments it's human nature

    Now you sit in judgement of Mosby, without clearly delineating her transgressions much less provide any actual facts.

    So you sit in judgment of McCulloch but no one can sit in judgement of Mosby.

    You just identified yourself as a hypocrite.

    I'll give you a do-over. Would you like to try that again???

    BTW I just did identify what she did.

    Did it go over your head???

    Mosby unilaterally deprived 6 people of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, and she likely leaned on the Medical Examiner and others to do that.

    Read the Motion and deal with it --


    Parent

    I admitted (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 11, 2015 at 06:16:31 AM EST
    to making value judgements based on verified facts. I ceded your right to do so , that's exactly what a great majority of posts from all sides do, with many of them unfortunately skipping the fact part

     I asked you for a fact you gave me

    she likely leaned on the Medical Examiner and others to do that.
    Likely? Based on what proof?

    I asked for your assertion you give me

    Mosby unilaterally deprived 6 people of life, liberty, and property without due process of law
    Call me crazy but I do believe that is part of her job description.

    You have to do better than that Chip.

    Parent

    Chip, YOU were sitting in judgment of (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:17:35 AM EST
    McCulloch almost a year ago, making some of the same kinds of accusations against him as you are now making against Mosby - so why are you now holding McCulloch up as some sort of ideal?

    And not to get too picky here, but Mosby has denied no one "life," and all 6 accused are out on bond.

    I've read the Motion and all the exhibits to it; in my opinion, there's not as much there as you think there is.  Defense attorneys are doing what they can to get their clients out from under these charges - which is their job and the defendants' right - and part of the strategy is getting defendants a chance to argue their case in public, even though the public will not be ruling on the motion.

    You have no factual basis for continuing to accuse Mosby of leaning on anyone in order to bring charges; you really need to stop doing that.

    Parent

    Prosecutor Mosby's Investigator (none / 0) (#136)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:19:31 AM EST
    yes it (none / 0) (#137)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:54:21 AM EST
    could get worse, apparently no one got "homicided"  while in his custody.

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 11, 2015 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    I do find the allegations against Mackel a bit troubling, but no more than this and this.  
    I guess
    Everybody's got something to hide Except for me and my monkey
    ( I really miss John Lennon on days like this)

    Please let this case play out with the facts, not the personalities.


    Parent

    A couple of things: (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2015 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    First, this happened in 2009, six years ago; isn't it fair to ask what has happened since?  If he's carried out his investigator responsibilities without incident, what happened in 2009 would seem to carry less weight.

    Second, it was during O'Malley's term as mayor that the crime stats were routinely monkeyed with.

    The second thing Marty did, in order to be governor, involves the stats themselves. In the beginning, under Norris, he did get a better brand of police work and we can credit a legitimate 12 to 15 percent decline in homicides. Again, that was a restoration of an investigative deterrent in the early years of that administration. But it wasn't enough to declare a Baltimore Miracle, by any means.

    What can you do? You can't artificially lower the murder rate - how do you hide the bodies when it's the state health department that controls the medical examiner's office? But the other felony categories? Robbery, aggravated assault, rape? Christ, what they did with that stuff was jaw-dropping.

    So they cooked the books.

    Oh yeah. If you hit somebody with a bullet, that had to count. If they went to the hospital with a bullet in them, it probably had to count as an aggravated assault. But if someone just took a gun out and emptied the clip and didn't hit anything or they didn't know if you hit anything, suddenly that was a common assault or even an unfounded report. Armed robberies became larcenies if you only had a victim's description of a gun, but not a recovered weapon. And it only gets worse as some district commanders began to curry favor with the mayoral aides who were sitting on the Comstat data. In the Southwest District, a victim would try to make an armed robbery complaint, saying , `I just got robbed, somebody pointed a gun at me,' and what they would do is tell him, well, okay, we can take the report but the first thing we have to do is run you through the computer to see if there's any paper on you. Wait, you're doing a warrant check on me before I can report a robbery? Oh yeah, we gotta know who you are before we take a complaint. You and everyone you're living with? What's your address again? You still want to report that robbery?

    They cooked their own books in remarkable ways. Guns disappeared from reports and armed robberies became larcenies. Deadly weapons were omitted from reports and aggravated assaults became common assaults. The Baltimore Sun did a fine job looking into the dramatic drop in rapes in the city. Turned out that regardless of how insistent the victims were that they had been raped, the incidents were being quietly unfounded. That tip of the iceberg was reported, but the rest of it, no. And yet there were many veteran commanders and supervisors who were disgusted, who would privately complain about what was happening. If you weren't a journalist obliged to quote sources and instead, say, someone writing a fictional television drama, they'd share a beer and let you fill cocktail napkins with all the ways in which felonies disappeared in those years.

    I realize that Avon Mackel's situation occured in 2009, and O'Malley took office as governor in 2007, but people just really need to understand the legacy of that form of policing, and the mindset of working to keep the worst crime stats low.


    Parent

    No Anne (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 11, 2015 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    what happened in 2009 would seem to carry less weight.

    That's a mere 5 years ago and the so-called cooking the books is actually telling lies to make themselves look good.

    What's the Therory Here... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 11, 2015 at 01:45:25 PM EST
    ...a bad cop can't investigate other bad cops ?  I am sure if you asked cops who they would rather have running an investigation into police wrongdoing, it wouldn't be the squeaky clean cop.

    So far the only difference between his investigation and the police investigation is the dispute over the knife, which I process as the statue is probably not clear as we would like.  And from everything I have read, this is probably a feature for Baltimore, to ensure arrests are legitimate make the law open to interpretations.

    Obviously I don't know, but that is the only way to me in which a piece of physical evidence can be viewed differently.  It's tangible, something everyone involved in the trial will see.  It would make no sense for either side to lie about it.

    I think they should have selected an investigator with a clean background, but the more I am learning about the Baltimore PD the more I am realizing that might not be possible.

    All the other claims, namely over charging, have nothing to do with the investigator.  It is the coroner who declared it a homicide.  Everything else, so far, he has been in line with the police investigation, which isn't surprising when you remember he is a GD cop.

    Parent

    I think people keep forgetting [one of] (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2015 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    the reasons why a separate, but parallel, investigation was undertaken by the city state's attorney's office, and that was to avoid accusations of favoritism associated with an investigation of these police officers being conducted by other members of the department in which they worked.  It's why Mosby stressed the independent investigation her office conducted.

    If the knife was illegal, the cops clearly had a basis for arresting him and taking him into custody; it still does not explain or justify the fact that Gray went into the van alive and came out essentially dead.  

    And as near as I can tell, there are numerous questions about the route and length of time it took the van to not even get close to Central Booking - not to mention the call they didn't have to respond to that took them even more off course.

    Parent

    If I recall correctly, the legality, (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 11, 2015 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    or, illegality of the knife was bounced back and forth numerous times in the first days of the incident. After a while the tiny minutia of what constitutes the legal/illegal definition became so paper thin, it became a joke.

    Assuming that a majority of the other charges are well based, and stand up through cross examination, I doubt very much a jury will make the status of the knife a critical issue.

    Parent

    Well, the quickest distance (none / 0) (#147)
    by Palli on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:33:19 PM EST
    between 2 points is a straight line, but corner turns s make the best nickel ride and five minute drives just aren't long enough for a full complement of corner turns.

    Parent
    Not Defend Anyone... (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 12, 2015 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    ...but in a big city, the distance between two points is rarely a straight line, usually not even close especially if there are one way streets.

    The route even when I go to work is highly dependent on the red traffic lines on Google maps, some days I take the freeway, some days, like today, I cut through the city.

    I suspect that they choose routes for the nickel ride that could be argued were the least time consuming should they need to explain themselves in court.

    Parent

    Scott, the Western District station (none / 0) (#153)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2015 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    is 5 blocks from where they initially put Gray into the wagon; no turns, and you can walk it in under 2 minutes.

    Central Booking, on the other hand, is farther away, which is why I believe the decision was made - by Rice, I believe - to take him there.  Although they never actually went there, ending up as they did at the Western District station.

    I posted a map in one of these threads; it's kind of an eye-opener.

    Parent

    It's 2015, jim...not 2014 (none / 0) (#141)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2015 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    And you left off the beginning of that sentence; here's the whole thing:

    If he's carried out his investigator responsibilities without incident, what happened in 2009 would seem to carry less weight.

    It wasn't just about the six-years between then and now, it was about what he did in those six years.

    As for the statistics, I'm not supporting the manipulation of and disappearance of arrest and other records, just pointing out how things came to be that way; I thought it important for people to know that this was not just a rogue thing, but a systemic problem that had been ongoing in the department for some time.  

    Information shouldn't be a one-way street, jim; Chip likes to blast the most explosive stuff in people's faces, but doesn't usually provide any context or other information - that's what I was doing - and you can't always trust his "facts."


    Parent

    So I subtracted wrong (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 11, 2015 at 02:45:27 PM EST
    One year makes no difference.

    In this case "Caesar's Wife" must be the baseline. There must be a person around who doesn't carry baggage and is acceptable to call.

    And yes, I understand Chip and have disagreed with him many times.

    Parent

    whooosh... (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by sj on Mon May 11, 2015 at 05:53:37 PM EST
    the Full Donta Allen Interview (none / 0) (#173)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 13, 2015 at 07:39:46 AM EST
    Here is the Full Jayne Miller/Donta Allen Interview done the day before charges were brought and right after the WaPo article came out.

    One thing of note coming from the interview is that Donta Allen and Freddie Gray knew each other.

    Underlying this interview is the claim that these two were spotted doing a drug deal on the street that morning and both ran.

    That's why Donta denied seeing Freddie that morning, claiming that the last time he saw him was the day before.

    And then Donta goes apoplectic in denial when told by a police officer that Freddie swallowed something.

    Will Donta be the prosecutor's star at the Grand Jury Performance and will any of this come out there???