0-4

[mirkwood]

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/175723691-story

 

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/32468834/brian-rice-trial-highest-ranking-officer-cleared-in-freddie-gray-death

 

 

[NeedleinA]

I know pretty much nothing about any of this, I just wonder if the guy will ever be able to get a job again in law-enforcement even after be acquitted? If he did no wrong you would hope so, but I wonder if the stigma sticks??? @mirkwood, any thoughts?

[mirkwood]

This is from the Freddie Gray incident.  He is still employed.  So are the other five accused. 

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

This is from the Freddie Gray incident.  He is still employed.  So are the other five falsely accused. 

Fixed it for you.

Lehi

[unixknight]

@LeSellers  No, he said it right.

A perfectly healthy man went from fully alive to fully dead after an involuntary encounter with these four guys, and you're basically saying nobody's accountable.

Though to be accurate, it's 3-0.  One will be retried.

Edited July 18, 2016 by unixknight

[LeSellers]

31 minutes ago, unixknight said:

A perfectly healthy man went from fully alive to fully dead after an involuntary encounter with these four guys, and you're basically saying nobody's accountable.

I didn't say no one is accountable, I'm saying these specific cops are not responsible.

There's a big difference.

The guilty person, as far as I can tell, is the dead guy, who put himself in harm's way and aggravated the situation. It was, in effect, suicide by cop, except that was not his goal, just the result.

Lehi

Edited July 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

10 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I didn't say no one is accountable, I'm saying these specific cops are not responsible.

There's a big difference.

The guilty person, as far as I can tell, is the dead guy, who put himself in harm's way and aggravated the situation. It was, in effect, suicide by cop, except that was not his goal, just the result.

Lehi

Yeah, you're right.  The nerve of that guy Freddie... bouncing around the inside of that police van and, silly boy hurt himself.  My goodness... I think, if anything, his  family ought to reimburse the city for the cost of cleaning any of his blood that might have gotten on the inside of the van.  (Cleaning up biohazardous material is expensive, you know... and why should the people of Baltimore pay to clean it when obviously Freddie couldn't seem to keep his butt in that seat.)  There may even have been a dent or two in the metal where his head hit, jumping around the back of that van as he must have been to have caused himself such a severe injury.  The family ought to pay for that too. 

/sarcasm

Sorry but what you said there makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  I get being supportive of local law enforcement but being willfully blind to what happened isn't helping.  The fact is they put him in the van, and he died.  (Having committed no crime in the first place.)  And you're saying nobody's to blame except the innocent guy in the back who was handcuffed, not secured to the seat, and thrown around the back during a ride to the police station.

No sense whatsoever.  These officers were responsible for his safety.  They failed in that responsibility and he died.  And you say there should be no repercussions whatsoever for a fatal mistake.  A surgeon in an operating room doesn't get that level of butt-coverage as you want to give to 6 members of one of the most corrupt police departments in the country.

Edited July 18, 2016 by unixknight

[LeSellers]

49 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The nerve of that guy Freddie... bouncing around the inside of that police van and, silly boy hurt himself.

Your ill-placed sarcasm aside, that is exactly what another passenger (who was not injured) claimed Grey did. He threw himself around the van. And, as I recall (been a few months), this was not the first time.

50 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Having committed no crime in the first place.

Why was he in he van? Even if he was innocent, his innocence did not justify his fighting the police. When you're arrested, you go with them peacefully. Fighting is a new crime: resisting arrest, and it has its own punishment.

Lehi

[unixknight]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Your ill-placed sarcasm aside, that is exactly what another passenger (who was not injured) claimed Grey did. He threw himself around the van. And, as I recall (been a few months), this was not the first time.

I thought it was placed just right, actually.    (Going for levity here, not snark.)

In what way would that absolve the officers of responsibility for his safety?  His hands were cuffed, so it wasn't like he could have unbuckled a seatbelt.  That means nobody buckled him in. 

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Why was he in he van? Even if he was innocent, his innocence did not justify his fighting the police. When you're arrested, you go with them peacefully. Fighting is a new crime: resisting arrest, and it has its own punishment.

That's a pretty heavy punishment.  He DIED, brother.  You seem to be trying to make it sound like he had it coming...

...not that it matters, since he wasn't resisting arrest in the first place. 

And by the way... The ONLY crime you're accusing him of is resisting arrest.  Do you realize that's a complete contradiction?

Edited July 19, 2016 by unixknight

[LeSellers]

On 7/19/2016 at 6:14 PM, unixknight said:

That's a pretty heavy punishment.  He DIED, brother. 

If he were throwing himself around in the back of the van, it was his own choice.

I'm not sure (and I suspect you are not, either) that there are seat belts in paddy wagons. There weren't when I inspected one decades back. I know there aren't in school buses (because it would be a nightmare in a fire or other disaster).

But seat belts are not difficult to undo, without free hands. I've done it myself, and wasn't even trying for that. (It's one reason that Chrysler changed the design of door handles on their cars, with others following suit: the door handle and the seat belt buckle were too similar and people tried to open the doors instead of unbuckling the seat belt.)

Even if there were no seat belts, the other arrestee was not hurt, why Grey only?

Lehi

Edited July 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

If he were throwing himself around in the back of the van, it was his own choice.

Irrelevant, as that doesn't absolve the officers of their responsibility.

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I'm not sure (and I suspect you are not , either) that there are seat belts in paddy wagons. There weren't when I inspected one decades back. I know there aren't in school buses (because it would be a nightmare in a fire or other disaster).

That's true, I don't know if this one did or not, and to be fair most BPD vans don't.  That said, when they post signs like this, which IS from a BPD van:

They're ASKING for people to question their motives and professionalism. 

EDIT: Interestingly, there was a new policy of restraining detainees in police vans just before the incident occurred.  Know what that means?  There must have been belts in that van.  Of course, the defense's excuse has been "Well how was my client supposed to know?!?!?!?"

Pathetic.

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But seat belts are not difficult to undo, without free hands. I've done it myself, and wasn't even trying for that. (It's one reason that Chrysler changes the design of door handles on their cars, with others following suit: the door handle and the seat belt buckle were too similar and people tried to open the doors instead of unbuckling the seat belt.)

So you're speculating that if he had been secured, he might have gotten out and injured himself anyway?  Just how far are you willing to go to keep from acknowledging any wrongdoing on the part of these officers?  Even the BPD itself has admitted they made mistakes.  Why won't you?

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Even if there were no seat belts, the other arrestee was not hurt, why Grey only?

I don't know.  Why do some people survive car crashes while people next to them are killed?  Again, does the answer to this question absolve the officers of responsibility for Gray's safety?

Edited July 19, 2016 by unixknight

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Irrelevant, as that doesn't absolve the officers of their responsibility.

What, exactly was their responsibility, that it required them to stop him from throwing himself around in the van?

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Why do some people survive car crashes while people next to them are killed?

I didn't say he wasn't killed, I said he wasn't hurt. And he didn't complain about the ride.

Lehi

 

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

What, exactly was their responsibility, that it required them to stop him from throwing himself around in the van?

Well yes, actually.  There's a reason prisons go to extreme lengths to prevent inmates from suiciding or injuring themselves. 

I edited my previous post to add a link I discovered that showed the BPD had recently instituted a policy where officers were supposed to buckle detainees into the vans, but it may have been after you started replying.  I invite you to scroll up and have a look.

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I didn't say he wasn't killed, I said he wasn't hurt. And he didn't complain about the ride.

I see.  And is there a reason this other suspect who was in police custody has so much credibility with you other than the fact that he says what you want to hear?

For starters, that detainee was picked up AFTER Gray was, so he can't know what happened before he was there, so his complaint or lack thereof is irrelevant.  Second, he never said that Gray was trying to hurt himself.
 

So what you said earlier about the second detainee making that claim...

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Your ill-placed sarcasm aside, that is exactly what another passenger (who was not injured) claimed Grey did. He threw himself around the van. And, as I recall (been a few months), this was not the first time.

No he didn't.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks for your posts @unixknight I'm with you.

[LeSellers]

16 hours ago, unixknight said:

16 hours ago, LeSellers said:

that is exactly what another passenger (who was not injured) claimed Grey did. He threw himself around the van. And, as I recall (been a few months), this was not the first time.

No he didn't.

Well, yes he did:

Quote

BALTIMORE — A prisoner sharing a police transport van with Freddie Gray told investigators that he could hear Gray “banging against the walls” of the vehicle and believed that he “was intentionally trying to injure himself,” according to a police document obtained by The Washington Post.

The prisoner was separated from Gray by a metal partition and could not see him. His statement is contained in an application for a search warrant, which is sealed by the court. The Post was given the document under the condition that the prisoner not be named because the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety. But the prisoner, Donta Allen, 22, later spoke to the media, including The Post, and allowed himself to be identified.

In a phone interview, Allen said he had been in the van with Gray and told police he heard “light banging.” He said the police report incorrectly characterized his statements to authorities and that he “never ever said to police that [Gray] was hurting himself.”

He recanted, claiming it was not what he said. Yet "the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety". It's no stretch of the imagination to see that Allen was, indeed, fearful for his life after receiving threats from BLM or others. No one would imagine that he could remain anonymous and, therefor, safe from retaliation.

I put a lot more credence in this PoV and the determination of the courts than that of people with a hateful, anti-police agenda. Your mileage obviously varies. But your implying that I am either ignorant or biased is unwarranted.

Lehi

Edited July 19, 2016 by LeSellers

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I put a lot more credence in this PoV and the determination of the courts than that of people with a hateful, anti-police agenda.

The part in bold is what I totally agree with.

A man died in police custody, that is worth an investigation from an impartial and competent source.

That investigation lead to a court case and the court found them Not Guilty.  We should accept that unless we have proof that the investigation/court case was not impartial or competent.  If we have such proof then we should turn it over to an impartial and competent investigative agency so such error/wrong doing can be investigated and properly dealt with.

Not liking the finding happens...  But calling wrong without proof of misconduct is an act of pride and emotion, that overpowers logic and reason.   It puts pride over facts, and what we want over justice  

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The part in bold is what I totally agree with.

A man died in police custody, that is worth an investigation from an impartial and competent source.

That investigation lead to a court case and the court found them Not Guilty.  We should accept that unless we have proof that the investigation/court case was not impartial or competent.  If we have such proof then we should turn it over to an impartial and competent investigative agency so such error/wrong doing can be investigated and properly dealt with.

Not liking the finding happens...  But calling wrong without proof of misconduct is an act of pride and emotion, that overpowers logic and reason.   It puts pride over facts, and what we want over justice  

Yes.  In cases like this the attitude is that it was good enough to send to the courts, but not good enough that I didn't get the result I wanted. 

[LeSellers]

If

• you were a police officer,
• there had been a crime committed,
• and you found this man in the vicinity

Would you not want to question him formally?

Freddie Grey's rap sheet:

Quote

• March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
• March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
• January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
• January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
• December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
• December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
• January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
• September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
• April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
• July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
• March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
• February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
• August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
• August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
• July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

Now, I don't care about illegal drugs (unless the intoxicated person is showing an immediate danger to those around him), but, for now, they are illegal and "possession" and "intent" are crimes.

It beggars belief that anyone could say that the police had no reason to bring him in. He is a recidivist felon in the area where crimes are committed daily. He is, by definition, a person of interest.

Immediately, one expects a "but it didn't warrant a death sentence" objection. I agree. But the first element of the series of events that led to his death was being detained. There was ample cause to take him to the station.

Lehi

Edited July 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

I still don't understand how BLM can claim the Freddie Grey case as racism. 

[unixknight]

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Well, yes he did:

He recanted, claiming it was not what he said. Yet "the person who provided it feared for the inmate’s safety". It's no stretch of the imagination to see that Allen was, indeed, fearful for his life after receiving threats from BLM or others. No one would imagine that he could remain anonymous and, therefor, safe from retaliation.

Hey if you prefer to believe the initial misquote then be my guest.  Just don't expect people to agree when that statement is, at best, in question.  The part about his changing his story out of fear is speculation on your part, brother.

 

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I put a lot more credence in this PoV and the determination of the courts than that of people with a hateful, anti-police agenda. Your mileage obviously varies. But your implying that I am either ignorant or biased is unwarranted.

Well, so far the courts have only acquitted 3 out of 6.

And yes you are biased... But so am I, and every other person who cares about this story.  The trick is to keep one's mind open to other points of view.

Gray's rap sheet is irrelevant.  Whatever he did in the past doesn't justify what happened to him.  People seem to think that smearing him somehow resolves the question.  So he was a habitual felon.  Okay fine.  So what?  We agree that he didn't deserve death so I don't know what point you're trying to make here.  Gray was a habitual felon,  therefore the police are not guilty of his death? 

@estradling75 Remember, that's 3 out of the 6.  Your post gives the impression that they've all been acquitted.

Edited July 19, 2016 by unixknight

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Hey if you prefer to believe the initial misquote then be my guest.  Just don't expect people to agree when that statement is, at best, in question.  The part about his changing his story out of fear is speculation on your part, brother.

 

Well, so far the courts have only acquitted 3 out of 6.

And yes you are biased... But so am I, and every other person who cares about this story.  The trick is to keep one's mind open to other points of view.

Gray's rap sheet is irrelevant.  Whatever he did in the past doesn't justify what happened to him.  People seem to think that smearing him somehow resolves the question.  So he was a habitual felon.  Okay fine.  So what?  We agree that he didn't deserve death so I don't know what point you're trying to make here.  Gray was a habitual felon,  therefore the police are not guilty of his death? 

@estradling75 Remember, that's 3 out of the 6.  Your post gives the impression that they've all been acquitted.

I thought we were talking about the ones mentioned in the article who have been found not guilty?

After all why would you be complaining about no one being held accountable if you were talking about it only being half done?

Also what about me saying allowing the investigation to run and complete and accepting the results whatever they might be... leads you to thinking I have a predetermined outcome in mind?

Seems to me that you are projecting your actions and thought on others, reading more into what is said then what is really said.

 

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I thought we were talking about the ones mentioned in the article who have been found not guilty?

After all why would you be complaining about no one being held accountable if you were talking about it only being half done?

LeSellers and I have been discussing the case in its entirety after I responded to a comment of his saying they were falsely accused.  I haven't been complaining about the court rulings themselves because I wasn't there and don't know what went on in the courtroom.

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Also what about me saying allowing the investigation to run and complete and accepting the results whatever they might be... leads you to thinking I have a predetermined outcome in mind?

That isn't what I said.  I said your post gave the impression that they'd all been acquitted (as opposed to 3 out of the 6.)

I'm not the one projecting, bro. 

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

That isn't what I said.  I said your post gave the impression that they'd all been acquitted (as opposed to 3 out of the 6.)

I'm not the one projecting, bro. 

Since all I was talking about the one(s) that the court found Not Guilty... And those complaining about Court Verdicts and the Legal processes any additional meaning beyond that is supplied by the reader...  Thus your impression is totally yours not mine

Edited July 19, 2016 by estradling75

[unixknight]

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Since all I was talking about the one(s) that the court found Not Guilty... And those complaining about Court Verdicts and the Legal processes any additional meaning beyond that is supplied by the reader...  Thus your impression is totally yours not mine

If you say so.  Not looking to bicker over syntax.  You made some bad assumptions of your own but let's just leave it at that.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Hey if you prefer to believe the initial misquote then be my guest.  Just don't expect people to agree when that statement is, at best, in question.  The part about his changing his story out of fear is speculation on your part, brother.

Yes, I very much prefer to believe the initial misquote, as it answers a lot of questions the recantation leaves hanging.

Since I said it was speculation, this is not in contention. However, the Washington Post (hardly a right-wing standard bearer) story is the place where the fear of retaliation was raised. That didn't come from me.

Lehi