Charges Dropped Against All Officers In Freddie Gray Case

[Kathianne]

About time!

http://wavy.com/2016/07/27/pretrial-motions-heard-for-fifth-officer-in-freddie-gray-death/


Prosecutors drop remaining charges against officers in Freddie Gray death

By Associated Press (http://wavy.com/author/associated-press/)

Published: <time class="entry-date published" datetime="2016-07-27T07:46:02+00:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: subpixel-antialiased !important;">July 27, 2016, 7:46 am</time> Updated: <time class="updated" datetime="2016-07-27T09:54:21+00:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: subpixel-antialiased !important;">July 27, 2016, 9:54 am

</time>BALTIMORE (AP) — Prosecutors have dropped the remaining charges against Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, bringing an end to the case without a conviction.

Gray was a black man who was critically injured in the back of a police van in April 2015.

Prosecutors’ decision Wednesday comes after a judge had already acquitted three of the six officers charged in the case, including the van driver and another officer who was the highest-ranking of the group.

A fourth officer had his case heard by a jury, who deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial.
...

[Black Diamond]

Publishers are blowing up Mosby's phone as we type. :cool:

[GravyBoat]

The family is getting $6.4 million in civil settlement.

[Kathianne]

The family is getting $6.4 million in civil settlement.

Indeed. The mayor is not running for re-election and is now in Philly. Great way to protect the citizen's monies.

[Elessar]

They manufactured a case, based on nothing substantial, just to appease the public.

Massive egg on the face for the Mayor and that idiot DA. Instead of standing up for
their employees - the cops - they tried to crucify them on false charges.

Was there neglect? Perhaps so, but not to the degree as was stated in the charges.

[Russ]

Publishers are blowing up Mosby's phone as we type. :cool:

... and her career. :laugh:

[Gunny]

... and her career. :laugh:

What career? :laugh:

[Russ]

What career? :laugh:

Ha! By this time next year her career will involve frequently saying "would you like fries with that?" :laugh:

[Black Diamond]

Ha! By this time next year her career will involve frequently saying "would you like fries with that?" :laugh:
nah, there's a big enough market out there for people who want to read about "racial injustice". she'll make out like a champ.

[Elessar]

nah, there's a big enough market out there for people who want to read about "racial injustice". she'll make out like a champ.

Sad but true. So much for easing racial relations with examples such as these.

[fj1200]

The family is getting $6.4 million in civil settlement.

There's a difference between civil and criminal.


They manufactured a case, based on nothing substantial, just to appease the public.

Massive egg on the face for the Mayor and that idiot DA. Instead of standing up for
their employees - the cops - they tried to crucify them on false charges.

Was there neglect? Perhaps so, but not to the degree as was stated in the charges.

Separation of powers.

[Black Diamond]

There's a difference between civil and criminal.



Separation of powers.

Yeah lower burden of proof for civil.

[Gunny]

There's a difference between civil and criminal.



Separation of powers.

You are correct. And it's stupid. Ho do you find someone not guilty but liable? It's a bs way to get around double jeopardy. Add the Feds in. Triple jeopardy.

It's all a big lie and we think it's okay. Not.

[fj1200]

You are correct. And it's stupid. Ho do you find someone not guilty but liable? It's a bs way to get around double jeopardy. Add the Feds in. Triple jeopardy.

It's all a big lie and we think it's okay. Not.

Easily. Not guilty of a crime but negligent in carrying out duties. Besides I think in this case it's the city paying out for the negligence of their employees.

[Kathianne]

Easily. Not guilty of a crime but negligent in carrying out duties. Besides I think in this case it's the city paying out for the negligence of their employees.

Was.done by the city, likely to add presumption of guilt on officers.

[fj1200]

Was.done by the city, likely to add presumption of guilt on officers.

I don't know about that. You know they were going to get paid.

http://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/usatsi_7408762.jpg?w=1000&h=704

[Gunny]

Easily. Not guilty of a crime but negligent in carrying out duties. Besides I think in this case it's the city paying out for the negligence of their employees.

I call it screwing you anyway. I can't put you in prison but I can take all your money. There's nothing right about that when you consider the intent of the law.

If the officers were negligent in their duties they would have not done anything to begin with. Someone ought to be suing the DA and Mayor for negligence and inciting a riot. Don't see THAT happening though, do you?

[fj1200]

I call it screwing you anyway. I can't put you in prison but I can take all your money. There's nothing right about that when you consider the intent of the law.

If the officers were negligent in their duties they would have not done anything to begin with. Someone ought to be suing the DA and Mayor for negligence and inciting a riot. Don't see THAT happening though, do you?

The public sues by voting people out. But you're still railing on one thing when two are relevant. They didn't break the law but someone died due to negligence; could have been the cops and it could have been procedures, at this point I don't know which but the settlement was virtually guaranteed because that's how it goes and in some cases is a just outcome.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The family is getting $6.4 million in civil settlement.

If so, then its another travesty of justice.
One engineered to cause more lawsuits and unrest..
Reward the bastards for their criminality and false sense of outrage!
That is the ticket that obama and his team of traitors are selling to further weaken this nation.

Fact... -Tyr

[fj1200]

If so, then its another travesty of justice.

Umm...

Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-autopsy-20150623-story.html)

Freddie Gray (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/) suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine — most likely caused when the police van in which he was riding suddenly decelerated, according to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by The Baltimore Sun.The state medical examiner's office concluded that Gray's death could not be ruled an accident, and was instead a homicide, because officers failed to follow safety procedures "through acts of omission."
Though Gray was loaded into the van on his belly, the medical examiner surmised that he may have gotten to his feet and was thrown into the wall during an abrupt change in direction. He was not belted in, but his wrists and ankles were shackled, putting him "at risk for an unsupported fall during acceleration or deceleration of the van."
The medical examiner compared Gray's injury to those seen in shallow-water diving incidents.

It appears the state caused a death.

[Gunny]

The public sues by voting people out. But you're still railing on one thing when two are relevant. They didn't break the law but someone died due to negligence; could have been the cops and it could have been procedures, at this point I don't know which but the settlement was virtually guaranteed because that's how it goes and in some cases is a just outcome.

Railing? How do you fix a jacked up system if you refuse to acknowledge it?

You're either responsible for your actions or not. Doesn't matter which forum you want to put it in and call it something else. It's a way around the law against double jeopardy. Simple as that.

I fully understand how it goes. Add some Federal charges, and in the case of vets military charges and you got quadruple jeopardy. Doesn't matter what you want to call it. It comes out the same in the wash.

[Black Diamond]

I am loving it. And i hope that bitch gets disbarred.

[fj1200]

Railing? How do you fix a jacked up system if you refuse to acknowledge it?

You're either responsible for your actions or not. Doesn't matter which forum you want to put it in and call it something else. It's a way around the law against double jeopardy. Simple as that.

I fully understand how it goes. Add some Federal charges, and in the case of vets military charges and you got quadruple jeopardy. Doesn't matter what you want to call it. It comes out the same in the wash.

It's your opinion. The cops committed no crime; they shouldn't go to jail. The State killed an individual; it shouldn't get off scot-free. A man died; do you want the cops in jail? This just isn't double jeopardy. BTW I'm not interested in a discussion that eventually gets to ten-tuple jeopardy.

[Gunny]

It's your opinion. The cops committed no crime; they shouldn't go to jail. The State killed an individual; it shouldn't get off scot-free. A man died; do you want the cops in jail? This just isn't double jeopardy. BTW I'm not interested in a discussion that eventually gets to ten-tuple jeopardy.

My opinion is if you are not criminally liable, you are not civilly liable. The Feds and/or military don't get to pile on. You're guilty or not.

If I get put in a police cruiser and have a heart attack on the way to the station is the cop guilty? And trust me, I'm not on the cops' side. I've been at the wrong end of their mistreatment.

But really .... my personal issues are their fault and reason for someone to suck up some taxpayer dough?

Maybe Mr Gray shouldn't have put himself in the position to begin with?

[Black Diamond]

My opinion is if you are not criminally liable, you are not civilly liable. The Feds and/or military don't get to pile on. You're guilty or not.

If I get put in a police cruiser and have a heart attack on the way to the station is the cop guilty? And trust me, I'm not on the cops' side. I've been at the wrong end of their mistreatment.

But really .... my personal issues are their fault and reason for someone to suck up some taxpayer dough?

Maybe Mr Gray shouldn't have put himself in the position to begin with?

Burden of proof us much lower in civil cases. Hence Orenthal guilty in civil court

[fj1200]

My opinion is if you are not criminally liable, you are not civilly liable. The Feds and/or military don't get to pile on. You're guilty or not.

If I get put in a police cruiser and have a heart attack on the way to the station is the cop guilty? And trust me, I'm not on the cops' side. I've been at the wrong end of their mistreatment.

But really .... my personal issues are their fault and reason for someone to suck up some taxpayer dough?

Maybe Mr Gray shouldn't have put himself in the position to begin with?

Those are two different standards and two different questions and in this particular case two different parties as defendant. The cops were innocent of a crime but that doesn't mean they were not negligent and the city paid a price because of their employees. Your example is also not pertinent to the case it would appear, the autopsy showed injuries caused by him being in police custody. It would be helpful to discuss the facts at hand.

Do I agree with your example? Yes, the police didn't cause your injury but that isn't the case here. You can't just dismiss entire causes of action because you think it's double jeopardy, have courts for that.

[Gunny]

Those are two different standards and two different questions and in this particular case two different parties as defendant. The cops were innocent of a crime but that doesn't mean they were not negligent and the city paid a price because of their employees. Your example is also not pertinent to the case it would appear, the autopsy showed injuries caused by him being in police custody. It would be helpful to discuss the facts at hand.

Do I agree with your example? Yes, the police didn't cause your injury but that isn't the case here. You can't just dismiss entire causes of action because you think it's double jeopardy, have courts for that.

Look, let's start this off right. I argue with you. I ask no quarter and expect none. I know who I can and cannot argue with. I can take whatever you dish out. Expect return fire. I don't ask for help and expect none. One on one bro.

I CAN expect fairness under the law without some amendment that backdoors the intent of the law. Here's a "for instance"

In the military, once the state is done prosecuting your ass for DUI, then the military piles on adn calls it an "administrative action" to get around double jeopardy. You lose your driving privileges on base. But it gets better. And you can bet me and a dumbass MP went at it over this.

The vehicle loses its driving privileges on base. So my LCpl is surrounded by MPs for driving his brother's car because his brother got the DUI. How does a vehicle lose its driving privileges?

Any pretense that our laws are fair and just is a joke. Didn't we commit tyranny against our king for freedom? Tell me what freedom we have. We're told how we are allowed to do any and everything. Any delusion otherwise is just smoke.

[fj1200]

Look, let's start this off right. I argue with you. I ask no quarter and expect none. I know who I can and cannot argue with. I can take whatever you dish out. Expect return fire. I don't ask for help and expect none. One on one bro.

I CAN expect fairness under the law without some amendment that backdoors the intent of the law. Here's a "for instance"

In the military, once the state is done prosecuting your ass for DUI, then the military piles on adn calls it an "administrative action" to get around double jeopardy. You lose your driving privileges on base. But it gets better. And you can bet me and a dumbass MP went at it over this.

The vehicle loses its driving privileges on base. So my LCpl is surrounded by MPs for driving his brother's car because his brother got the DUI. How does a vehicle lose its driving privileges?

Any pretense that our laws are fair and just is a joke. Didn't we commit tyranny against our king for freedom? Tell me what freedom we have. We're told how we are allowed to do any and everything. Any delusion otherwise is just smoke.

I don't dispute your example, but we can discuss criminal vs. civil if you'd like. :)

[Gunny]

I don't dispute your example, but we can discuss criminal vs. civil if you'd like. :)

I understand the difference. I disagree with it. Being found criminally not guilty and financially guilty is absurd. Using separate courts at separate levels as an excuse to backdoor the Constitution is just wrong.

No double jeopardy? Federal court, state court, criminal court and civil court. And if you're in the miltary, they screw you too. That's a count of 5 to me. Each has a reason why it doesn't count as double jeopardy but you can be tried 4 (as a civilian) or 5 (if you're military) times for one thing based on semantics.

[Black Diamond]

I understand the difference. I disagree with it. Being found criminally not guilty and financially guilty is absurd. Using separate courts at separate levels as an excuse to backdoor the Constitution is just wrong.

No double jeopardy? Federal court, state court, criminal court and civil court. And if you're in the miltary, they screw you too. That's a count of 5 to me. Each has a reason why it doesn't count as double jeopardy but you can be tried 4 (as a civilian) or 5 (if you're military) times for one thing based on semantics.

I was glad Simpson but busted in Civil Court. Course then he moved to Florida and skated on that too. But Again, the burden of proof is much lower in Civil Court. A defendant's life can still be ruined..

[fj1200]

I understand the difference. I disagree with it. Being found criminally not guilty and financially guilty is absurd. Using separate courts at separate levels as an excuse to backdoor the Constitution is just wrong.

No double jeopardy? Federal court, state court, criminal court and civil court. And if you're in the miltary, they screw you too. That's a count of 5 to me. Each has a reason why it doesn't count as double jeopardy but you can be tried 4 (as a civilian) or 5 (if you're military) times for one thing based on semantics.

But you recognize that someone can be negligent without being criminal?

[Black Diamond]

But you recognize that someone can be negligent without being criminal?

Lol. Do you consider OJ Simpson negligent?

[fj1200]

Lol. Do you consider OJ Simpson negligent?

He wasn't negligent in who he hired to defend him.

[Black Diamond]

He wasn't negligent in who he hired to defend him.


Touché.

[Gunny]

But you recognize that someone can be negligent without being criminal?

What is the difference? If you are "negligent" in a DUI you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Nobody made you drink then get behind the wheel. It doesn't make the person you just killed any less dead because you "didn't mean to".

That doesn't mean a lower POS court should be able to make you pay the family of someone who is dead. HE is dead. Their family shouldn't profit. This isn't about justice. It's about revenge.

[fj1200]

What is the difference? If you are "negligent" in a DUI you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Nobody made you drink then get behind the wheel. It doesn't make the person you just killed any less dead because you "didn't mean to".

That doesn't mean a lower POS court should be able to make you pay the family of someone who is dead. HE is dead. Their family shouldn't profit. This isn't about justice. It's about revenge.

There's a huge difference. In your scenario someone can be found guilty of DUI but then they will also be held negligent. If he happens to be found not guilty then he is still subject to a civil suit because he was the cause of the death. What if he's not dead and he is permanently disabled or has young kids who have no other source of income. Your claim that there is no justice is absurd.

[Gunny]

There's a huge difference. In your scenario someone can be found guilty of DUI but then they will also be held negligent. If he happens to be found not guilty then he is still subject to a civil suit because he was the cause of the death. What if he's not dead and he is permanently disabled or has young kids who have no other source of income. Your claim that there is no justice is absurd.

The problem here is, you're defending the system while I am defending ideology. You're guilty or not. One court.

You keep avoiding the obvious and trying to make this about me. I understand the reality of the situation. It doesn't change the fact that backdooring the Constitution is just wrong. It's in fact unconstitutional. If you can be be tried twice for the same thing, you are directly violating the Constitution. Calling it something different does NOT change that.

[fj1200]

The problem here is, you're defending the system while I am defending ideology. You're guilty or not. One court.

You keep avoiding the obvious and trying to make this about me. I understand the reality of the situation. It doesn't change the fact that backdooring the Constitution is just wrong. It's in fact unconstitutional. If you can be be tried twice for the same thing, you are directly violating the Constitution. Calling it something different does NOT change that.

Sure I'm defending the system because the system matches the ideology. I haven't made this about you at all. Your example doesn't even match the particular scenario from the OP anyway where the officers were tried once and the city paid out. But you're still confusing two separate issues; the State has an interest in whether or not someone commits a crime; and a private citizen has an interest if someone's negligence causes them financial distress.

And you haven't explained why the children of your hypothetical scenario receive justice when their father might be killed by a drunk driver and left without someone to support them who aren't able to pursue action against an individual who caused harm.

[Gunny]

Sure I'm defending the system because the system matches the ideology. I haven't made this about you at all. Your example doesn't even match the particular scenario from the OP anyway where the officers were tried once and the city paid out. But you're still confusing two separate issues; the State has an interest in whether or not someone commits a crime; and a private citizen has an interest if someone's negligence causes them financial distress.

And you haven't explained why the children of your hypothetical scenario receive justice when their father might be killed by a drunk driver and left without someone to support them who aren't able to pursue action against an individual who caused harm.

I don't agree with your argument. If you are found not guilty, you should not be able to be tried again and call it different because of the venue. It's STILL double jeopardy. You're being tried for the same thing more than once.

Your family being rewarded is just BS. You're still dead. It benefits the deceased in no way.

What it does is place a monetary value on a human life. I must have missed that regulation.

[fj1200]

I don't agree with your argument. If you are found not guilty, you should not be able to be tried again and call it different because of the venue. It's STILL double jeopardy. You're being tried for the same thing more than once.

Your family being rewarded is just BS. You're still dead. It benefits the deceased in no way.

What it does is place a monetary value on a human life. I must have missed that regulation.

At least decades of case law does. :shrug:

[Gunny]

At least decades of case law does. :shrug:

Ought to make you feel better that I don't agree with case law either. Some stupid judge's stupid ruling should control an issue for the rest of our lives?

At what point to you quit arguing with how it is and discuss the ideology? I understand full well how it is. That doesn't make it right.

[fj1200]

Ought to make you feel better that I don't agree with case law either. Some stupid judge's stupid ruling should control an issue for the rest of our lives?

At what point to you quit arguing with how it is and discuss the ideology? I understand full well how it is. That doesn't make it right.

I can discuss any of it you'd like but no sense in repeating arguments. The OP? Not double jeopardy. Your DUI example? Not double jeopardy.