I would think that once you establish that there existed no probable cause for an arrest the rest of the charges become easier to prove, no? Don't most of the laws concerning cirizen/police interaction have the "pursuant to a lawful arrest" language in them?
so basically once you establish that they had no right to arrest the person, from there it's basically as if they were a private citizen who made the asinine decision to slap restraints on him, throw him in the back of the van and then drive like an asshole while ignoring his pleas for medical help? I mean...because if I decided to do all that to my neighbor I sure as shit would get convicted.
That's what's constantly confused me about a lot of these cases - the level of "well, it's ok because it's a cop" that is legally required/allowed. where is that line?
Disclaimer: I do not practice criminal law, but I would think so, yes. The police are protected by the letter of the law but when they don't follow it they lose that protection. You are legally allowed to resist an unlawful arrest (in some situations to the point of killing the police officer). If they didn't have the probable cause required to make the arrest then everything after that kind of goes away. What would otherwise be resisting arrest and/or assault on a police officer becomes legally justified and if the police use force in furtherance of the unlawful arrest it's a battery on the citizen.
ETA: So basically, if the arrest was illegal they can't defend themselves on the assault charges by saying that he was resisting arrest or attacking an officer--since both in that instance are legal.
I am watching a video of the conference right now. I think Mosby did a great job. Very direct accounting the events. I just don't understand, after hearing the course of events, that anyone can say what happened is okay?!? He asked for medical help and they fucking ignored him. After arresting him for RUNNING AWAY, which is NOT A CRIME.
I think it's their attempt to taint the jury pool in order to get the trail(s) moved.
Yeah, that might be it. Getting trials moved is interesting to me now, with how quickly news spreads. It seems like a lot of the huge cases dominate the news everywhere, not just in the local areas. Less chance for personal connections and being completely inundated with the news if a trial is moved, but it seems like it would be almost impossible to find a jury that really hasn't heard much of anything at all.
They didn't even move the Boston marathon bomber trial out of Boston. So I feel like it would be unlikely that they would move this one.
I am watching a video of the conference right now. I think Mosby did a great job. Very direct accounting the events. I just don't understand, after hearing the course of events, that anyone can say what happened is okay?!? He asked for medical help and they fucking ignored him. After arresting him for RUNNING AWAY, which is NOT A CRIME.
Her account was horrifying. I don't know how anyone could listen to that and justify what those police officers did.
I am watching a video of the conference right now. I think Mosby did a great job. Very direct accounting the events. I just don't understand, after hearing the course of events, that anyone can say what happened is okay?!? He asked for medical help and they fucking ignored him. After arresting him for RUNNING AWAY, which is NOT A CRIME.
Her account was horrifying. I don't know how anyone could listen to that and justify what those police officers did.
There is a tiny part of my mind that would love for each of these "officers" to go through the exact same treatment they put Gray through when they are arrested, but most of me doesn't think anyone should have to go through what was detailed.
share.memebox.com/x/uKhKaZmemebox referal code for 20% off! DD1 "J" born 3/2003 DD2 "G" born 4/2011 DS is here! "H" born 2/2014 m/c#3 1-13-13 @ 9 weeks m/c#2 11-11-12 @ 5w2d I am an extended breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby wearing, pro marriage equality, birth control lovin', Catholic mama.
You know what's truly disgusting? How common it is to see people refer to the rioters as "wild animals" or "savages" and how NitaX pointed out the other day that there's an attitude that black people (and the young men especially) are somehow less than human yet the truly savage and inhuman behavior is how these officers acted and their callous disregard for a human life.
It makes my skin crawl to think that not only are there people out there who will do these things but will also think they were right and justified in what they did.
You know what's truly disgusting? How common it is to see people refer to the rioters as "wild animals" or "savages" and how NitaX pointed out the other day that there's an attitude that black people (and the young men especially) are somehow less than human yet the truly savage and inhuman behavior is how these officers acted and their callous disregard for a human life.
It makes my skin crawl to think that not only are there people out there who will do these things but will also think they were right and justified in what they did.
Right. It's so disturbing to think of them checking on him in the van and doing NOTHING. Even the one called to investigate the situation did NOTHING.
Someone on my brothers FB called this an overreach and said that no one has seen the evidence so we can't know if there was a callous disregard for human life (ie depraved heart murder). I told him we absolutely did know.
wait...what? They said that we can't know what happened because we don't have the evidence - but that this is clearly an overreach on the part of the people who HAVE seen the evidence? Does he realize that's a total contradiction?
Fox is reporting that one of the officers involved has a history of mental problems and had been placed on administrative leave twice within a one year period.
wait...what? They said that we can't know what happened because we don't have the evidence - but that this is clearly an overreach on the part of the people who HAVE seen the evidence? Does he realize that's a total contradiction?
I don't think so. It's mind boggling to me. And he doesn't seem to be anti Freddie Gray, he just thinks the murder charge was "too much." He's fine with the other charges.
My guess is his view is pretty common right now because people don't understand the legal nuances here.
I think a lot of people don't understand the legal requirements for various charges. I have had a few friends comment that it isn't enough but I don't think they understand fully what standards have to be met.
Fox is reporting tat one of the officers involved has a history of mental problems and had been placed on administrative leave twice within a one year period.
Oh well that's brilliant. Seems like twice in one year might be grounds for...idk... A new job? A different career?
Fox is reporting that one of the officers involved has a history of mental problems and had been placed on administrative leave twice within a one year period.
Murder 2 does seem harsh, but it all depends on a number of factors. That one might not stick.
Sure, it might not stick but it says a lot to me that they're pursuing it. Even if he isn't eventually convicted of murder 2, to include that in the charges sends quite a message.
Fox is reporting tat one of the officers involved has a history of mental problems and had been placed on administrative leave twice within a one year period.
Oh well that's brilliant. Seems like twice in one year might be grounds for...idk... A new job? A different career?
or just permanent desk duty to limit the potential for stressors / triggers.
so basically once you establish that they had no right to arrest the person, from there it's basically as if they were a private citizen who made the asinine decision to slap restraints on him, throw him in the back of the van and then drive like an asshole while ignoring his pleas for medical help? I mean...because if I decided to do all that to my neighbor I sure as shit would get convicted.
That's what's constantly confused me about a lot of these cases - the level of "well, it's ok because it's a cop" that is legally required/allowed. where is that line?
Disclaimer: I do not practice criminal law, but I would think so, yes. The police are protected by the letter of the law but when they don't follow it they lose that protection. You are legally allowed to resist an unlawful arrest (in some situations to the point of killing the police officer). If they didn't have the probable cause required to make the arrest then everything after that kind of goes away. What would otherwise be resisting arrest and/or assault on a police officer becomes legally justified and if the police use force in furtherance of the unlawful arrest it's a battery on the citizen.
ETA: So basically, if the arrest was illegal they can't defend themselves on the assault charges by saying that he was resisting arrest or attacking an officer--since both in that instance are legal.
You are not legally allowed to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one, in most states. However, there are a handful of states that do expressly allow resisting unlawful arrest, and MD happens to be one of them.
Fox is reporting that one of the officers involved has a history of mental problems and had been placed on administrative leave twice within a one year period.
There goes more city money that could have been used on school lunches or books for kids....
Murder 2 does seem harsh, but it all depends on a number of factors. That one might not stick.
Sure, it might not stick but it says a lot to me that they're pursuing it. Even if he isn't eventually convicted of murder 2, to include that in the charges sends quite a message.
Clearly. They may be able to prove it, too. I wouldn't be surprised if he pleads out to that one.
As quick as charges were filed (relatively) and as serious as they are, I have to wonder how much evidence they have - I would assume quite a bit but who knows, I guess.
As quick as charges were filed (relatively) and as serious as they are, I have to wonder how much evidence they have - I would assume quite a bit but who knows, I guess.
Mosby's account of what happened was very detailed. She said exactly who did what at what time. It made me think there is a lot of evidence. The specificity made me wonder if much was caught on camera. Either that, or someone is talking.
Disclaimer: I do not practice criminal law, but I would think so, yes. The police are protected by the letter of the law but when they don't follow it they lose that protection. You are legally allowed to resist an unlawful arrest (in some situations to the point of killing the police officer). If they didn't have the probable cause required to make the arrest then everything after that kind of goes away. What would otherwise be resisting arrest and/or assault on a police officer becomes legally justified and if the police use force in furtherance of the unlawful arrest it's a battery on the citizen.
ETA: So basically, if the arrest was illegal they can't defend themselves on the assault charges by saying that he was resisting arrest or attacking an officer--since both in that instance are legal.
You are not legally allowed to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one, in most states. However, there are a handful of states that do expressly allow resisting unlawful arrest, and MD happens to be one of them.
Sorry, thought I specified I was talking about MD. Yes, most states did away with the right to resist around the time of the Civil Rights Movement and the release of the Model Penal Code. Interestingly though, the last time SCOTUS dealt with it they implied that the right came from the 4th Amendment and not from state law so an argument could be made that it exists regardless of state law (although given the current court's relationship with the 4th Amendment I kind of doubt they would find that way).
FWIW, even if you're somewhere that expressly recognizes the right it's not the world's smartest thing to exercise. If a judge later determines that it was in fact a lawful arrest you're screwed.
You know what's truly disgusting? How common it is to see people refer to the rioters as "wild animals" or "savages" and how NitaX pointed out the other day that there's an attitude that black people (and the young men especially) are somehow less than human yet the truly savage and inhuman behavior is how these officers acted and their callous disregard for a human life.
It makes my skin crawl to think that not only are there people out there who will do these things but will also think they were right and justified in what they did.
You know we had something go down here where an ICE officer shot a man in his home. I really don't know the ins and outs of it yet, and I'm still not sure why ICE was involved, but someone from here was speaking at a protest and said something to the effect of "we can show that here in *my city* we don't act like savages." It really rubbed me wrong. I'll have to see if I can find a link to an article about it.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
As quick as charges were filed (relatively) and as serious as they are, I have to wonder how much evidence they have - I would assume quite a bit but who knows, I guess.
Mosby's account of what happened was very detailed. She said exactly who did what at what time. It made me think there is a lot of evidence. The specificity made me wonder if much was caught on camera. Either that, or someone is talking.
I was thinking this too. Especially when she got to the last stop, or maybe 2nd to last stop and said how they could tell his condition had deteriorated. She hadn't said that during the parts about earlier stops. They have to know something (or a lot)
As quick as charges were filed (relatively) and as serious as they are, I have to wonder how much evidence they have - I would assume quite a bit but who knows, I guess.
Mosby's account of what happened was very detailed. She said exactly who did what at what time. It made me think there is a lot of evidence. The specificity made me wonder if much was caught on camera. Either that, or someone is talking.
Yeah, they only received the police report yesterday. I'll have to go back and look at the charges, but I wonder if the *least* charged officer is talking.
As quick as charges were filed (relatively) and as serious as they are, I have to wonder how much evidence they have - I would assume quite a bit but who knows, I guess.
Mosby's account of what happened was very detailed. She said exactly who did what at what time. It made me think there is a lot of evidence. The specificity made me wonder if much was caught on camera. Either that, or someone is talking.
I just watched her speech. I kept thinking Preach! Very detailed from a lay person's point of view, so yeah they must have a decent amount of evidence and an inside witness.
Like I said previously I haven't been following the case super carefully because I knew it'd probably just make my blood boil and yep when she described how Freddie was unresponsive in the van and multiple people didn't call for help...so sad
I finally watched the video of the presser. I LOVE that lady! Loved her details, loved how committed to justice and transparency she sounded, loved her resolve. Loved her strength of presence.
She reminded me of smo, too, with her poise and eye makeup and even her voice, lol.