or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 269

post #4021 of 6095
Closing arguments in the second Freddie Gray trial, even more frivolous than the first.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/05/freddie-gray-analysis-day-6-closing-arguments/
post #4022 of 6095
Hmm, real unbiased and fair minded website it looks like. Good place to post as proof
post #4023 of 6095
Legal Insurrection is a conservative site, but its authors offer serious, honest, and sane analysis. Not to mention coverage at a level of depth and detail that's far and above anything available from the MSM. If you have a better source, I'd love to see it.

Oh, yeah, and if you didn't know (or read the article), it's a bench trial. The judge said he's going to announce the verdict Monday morning. It's hard to imagine he's doing that for any reason other than to minimize rioting. Then again, this whole prosecution is hard to imagine. The prosecutor seriously argued that every cop who participates in an arrest has to personally verify that there's probable cause for the arrest. That's absurd on its face, but after it was pointed out that the cop on trial had no one to ask, the prosecutor went on to argue that the cop committed a crime by not asking Freddie Gray why he was being arrested.

You can't make this stuff up.

Can you imagine the outrage if this were a black cop on trial for the death of a white man after white riots?
post #4024 of 6095
What indeed was the probable cause for the arrest?
post #4025 of 6095
Possessing a knife that was illegal under a Baltimore city ordinance.
post #4026 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Possessing a knife that was illegal under a Baltimore city ordinance.

Was it actually illegal?
post #4027 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post

Was it actually illegal?

As I understand it was a assisted open which is legal in some places and not others. It has a small spring that helps it open as your push the blade open. It's not a full auto which opens with a button and what most people think of as a switch blade.
post #4028 of 6095
The subhead "When The Judge Acts As A Jury" is a bit weird. It sort of implies that the article is going to take the position that there's something troubling or at least unusual about bench trials, which isn't really the case (and which, to be fair, isn't an argument the author really seems to be making in the body of the article.)
post #4029 of 6095
Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that angle. Taking questions during closing arguments? Not going to see that in a jury trial, sure. But the sort of questions the judge was asking were mostly legal questions, not fact questions, and so the dialogue was basically what you'd see in every single criminal trial when the defense argues for a directed verdict or during the jury instructions arguments.
post #4030 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post

What indeed was the probable cause for the arrest?
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Possessing a knife that was illegal under a Baltimore city ordinance.

 

I'm sure you are well aware that he was arrested long before they found the knife (which was later deemed legal).  So again, why was he arrested?

post #4031 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post


Was it actually illegal?

 

No

post #4032 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

I'm sure you are well aware that he was arrested long before they found the knife (which was later deemed legal).  So again, why was he arrested?


I assume you either don't know what arrest means, or you're using some archaic definition of the word that suits your argument (but confuses the issues). At common law, restraining someone was generally an arrest. Under the modern jargon, there are forms of detention short of arrest, the most notable being the "Terry stop," which requires only reasonable suspicion. Cops are allowed to use force to effect a Terry stop, including chasing them down. They can also frisk the person for weapons (a "Terry frisk") and take them if they find them.

Also, the knife was NOT later deemed legal by any actual authority. The prosecutors managed to secure indictments by (apparently) arguing it was legal under Maryland state law. The police (and others) note that Baltimore has city ordinances which have a different definition. I am not sure how the prosecutors have gotten away with that as long as they have. Maybe it'll come out at some point.

The prosecutors also seem to have totally abandoned the knife theory since numerous sources are noting that they didn't argue it at all at trial. Apparently they're hanging their hats on the theory that there was no reasonable suspicion for a terry stop and thus that the detention was a de facto arrest.

Good luck with that one based on everything I've read.
post #4033 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


I assume you either don't know what arrest means, or you're using some archaic definition of the word that suits your argument (but confuses the issues). At common law, restraining someone was generally an arrest. Under the modern jargon, there are forms of detention short of arrest, the most notable being the "Terry stop," which requires only reasonable suspicion. Cops are allowed to use force to effect a Terry stop, including chasing them down. They can also frisk the person for weapons (a "Terry frisk") and take them if they find them.

 

When confronted by silly facts you almost always play the semantics game.  I am neither law enforcement nor a lawyer so let me rephrase:  What was the reason Freddy Gray was stopped and then detained?  What was the reasonable suspicion? Clearly it wasn't the knife, which was only found afterwards.

 

 

Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Also, the knife was NOT later deemed legal by any actual authority. The prosecutors managed to secure indictments by (apparently) arguing it was legal under Maryland state law. The police (and others) note that Baltimore has city ordinances which have a different definition. 
 

 

So a beat cop's opinion outweighs a prosecutor?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


The prosecutors also seem to have totally abandoned the knife theory since numerous sources are noting that they didn't argue it at all at trial.

 

 

I thought it was the defense that abandoned the illegal knife theory.  If the knife was indeed illegal the defense would have been all over it

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Baltimore Sun View Post

When Baltimore Police Officer Garrett Miller described the arrest of Freddie Gray on the morning of April 12, 2015 in a written statement of charges, it was all about the knife he allegedly found on Gray.  

"This officer noticed a knife clipped to the inside of his front right pants pocket," Miller wrote. "The knife was recovered by this officer and found to be a spring assisted, one hand operated knife."

The knife, however, hasn't come up at all during the trial this week of Officer Edward Nero, who is charged along with Miller with illegally stopping and arresting Gray.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-nero-trial-knife-20160518-story.html
post #4034 of 6095
He took off when he saw the cops, and he was in a high-crime area when he did it. It's black letter law that that's reasonable suspicion enough for the cops to stop him and ask what's up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

So a beat cop's opinion outweighs a prosecutor?

...

I thought it was the defense that abandoned the illegal knife theory.  If the knife was indeed illegal the defense would have been all over it

The prosecutor has the burden of proof, not the other way around.
post #4035 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

He took off when he saw the cops, and he was in a high-crime area when he did it. It's black letter law that that's reasonable suspicion enough for the cops to stop him and ask what's up.
The prosecutor has the burden of proof, not the other way around.

Don't think so. The SCOTUS has ruled that fleeing is not a de facto PC, and with no PC, there's no Terry stop. Now, being a high crime area, yeah, fleeing is PC but that's really pretty discriminatory and is going to have disparate impact on blacks since so many of them live in high crime areas.

Basically, I think there should be one law for everyone no matter where they are.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?