Freddie Gray's Death Ruled a Homicide; 6 Officers Charged!

a reply to: Greathouse

It's good to ruffle some feathers now and again, feathers get too comfortable or complacent with the status quo. Right or wrong her decision has given the public the idea that it's being taken seriously. The courts will sort it out, I would imagine the officers legal expenses are paid for?

a reply to: marg6043

And I've been a voter since 1981. There are still some good ones. I agree they're few and far between. That's why you do your research instead of just naming them all bad.

Doesn't matter if he was committing a crime or not, Police are to protect suspects in their custody.

Anyone on a jury who thinks the police get a pass to injure or kill a suspect because he may / did sell drugs on a corner is failing in their duty as a jury.

a reply to: roadgravel

Exactly, his past didn't matter once they had him cuffed and in custody.
At that point they are responsible for his well being.

a reply to: vonclod

I would imagine the police union covers their lawyers tab. One thing I'm very surprised at is how quickly they made their bail and that the bails weren't set higher. Have anybody heard any reports on who guaranteed their bail? My bet is that it was also the police union. I was also proud and surprised that there wasn't more unrest when the officers may bail so quickly.

I caught a report on TV where one of the suspects who damaged a police cruiser was given a $500,000 bail.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: marg6043
The Gray family attorney has zero to do with a criminal trial. Her job is to present whatever evidence the state can come up with of the guilt of the defendant. I am not sure how you think that can be effected by a family attorney. Do you think she will fabricate evidence or something?

The concern stems from the charges in question and thus far the lack of evidence to support those charges. The role of a prosecutor is to be dispassionate and deliberate. If she filed charges because her husband sits on city council and because the attorney for Mr. Gray / Gray's family donated to get her elected then there is a potential issue.

While people, for the most part, hate the cops they still retain their rights to a fair trial and their other constitutional rights. If the PA's associations influenced her decision then there could be a problem.

In this real the question becomes:
Did she file charges because of the evidence or did she file charges because of her husband and the Gray's attorney.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Doesn't matter if he was committing a crime or not, Police are to protect suspects in their custody.

Anyone on a jury who thinks the police get a pass to injure or kill a suspect because he may / did sell drugs on a corner is failing in their duty as a jury.

Agreed...

The issue here though is proving the cops are the cause of the injury and I state this because of the disparity in charges to the various officers in question.

Absent damning evidence what I see is the legal equivalent of what we call "spray and pray". In other words you throw rounds in the hopes you hit something while hoping you don't hit anyone who might be in the way but uninvolved.

Its coming across as finger pointing in hopes someone cracks, which is fine if you have the evidence. In this case I really don't think they do that will support a conviction (based on whats in the public realm).

The manner in which this prosecution is occurring looks more like politics aimed at the public realm and little to do with actually finding those responsible and holding them accountable.

Why do I have such a massive issue with that mindset and approach? If you are going to burn down business and scream about racial bias then I would expect you (not you personally - aimed at some of the protestors / Al Sharpton) to be the last person to justify a lynching solely to appease the public.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you know there isn't evidence to support the charges?

a reply to: Greathouse

I think the fact that charges were laid quickly has taken some of anger away..toned it down a bit anyway.

Since nobody else looked a source up I decided to. Bill Murphy (a ex judge and grays family lawyer) donated $5000 out of the $106,000 she raised for her campaign.

I hardly call that big money or conflict of interest.

$5000 pffffft

a reply to: Xcathdra

Proving they did cause his fatal injuries may be a problem of evidence. As we all know, it's supposed to be up to the prosecution to prove guilty, not the defense to prove non guilt. A lot may depend on who is on the jury.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you know there isn't evidence to support the charges?

You keep coming back at me with this argument and yet you are failing to understand what I am saying.

All it takes is one person on the jury (if they choose a jury trial) to say no I don't think the prosecutor has it. If that occurs and these officers walk, all because this prosecutor has a 6 foot blue flame (in her case I would say the blue has gone to bright white), with jeopardy attached, then its game over and she just opened to door to vigilante justice.

There is a reason we have a looong statute of limitations on these types of crimes. Do the investigation, do it methodically, cross the T's, dot the i's and lower case j's, re-interview using the PA's / independent investigators and make sure you follow the first rule of being a lawyer -

Never ask a question you don't know / have the answer to.

You don't rush investigations.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra

Proving they did cause his fatal injuries may be a problem of evidence. As we all know, it's supposed to be up to the prosecution to prove guilty, not the defense to prove non guilt. A lot may depend on who is on the jury.

This is my point others ignore for various reasons. I have no issues charging cops and trying them and if found guilty sending them to prison. In these instances though you go for something other than circumstantial in hopes it works..

This is not throwing crap against a wall in hopes something sticks and stinks to the point of a conviction.

originally posted by: Greathouse
Since nobody else looked a source up I decided to. Bill Murphy (a ex judge and grays family lawyer) donated $5000 out of the $106,000 she raised for her campaign.

I hardly call that big money or conflict of interest.

$5000 pffffft

The question, as pointed out earlier, revolves around whether or not she went forward with charges because of her husband and because of the family's attorney donating money to get her elected -

IE

is the prosecution based on actual criminal wrong doing with the evidence to support that or is the prosecution based on the political leanings of her husband and the Gray's attorney.

IE

Possible conflict of interest / prosecutorial misconduct / ethic violations.

a reply to: roadgravel

No one has seen what evidence Mrs. Mosby has. Sorry I have to go back to the probable cause affidavit again.

Where she stated that after he was re-cuffed and placed in the van and between the next stop (paraphrased) which was the unscheduled one at Fremont Street. Was when the injury happened. For all anybody knows she could have 12 eyewitnesses to the driver giving a rough ride or a break job between those stops. The police might not even know about a situation like that either because there hasn't been no discovery yet.

Again remember she had her own people investigated this before she received the police report.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is not throwing crap against a wall in hopes something sticks and stinks to the point of a conviction.

Let's hope not. I am a believer in having evidence. Being found guilty or not based on some people's gut feelings doesn't seem like justice to me.

a reply to: Greathouse

and that info should have been contained in the PC stating there were witnesses to the crime to support that charge.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Possible conflict of interest / prosecutorial misconduct / ethic violations.

Typical, put everybody else on trial but the police, who violated several laws and regulations, that resulted in a man's death. But, yeah, why not blame the State's Attorney. She's young, black and women. Easy pickins, right?

a reply to: windword

The bulk of the people in charge of this are black and 3 of the 6 accused are black.. But lets make this about race instead of justice. Last I checked the scales of justice are shown as balanced, sword downturned and lady justice herself blindfolded.

Do you really want any possible convictions over turned (if found guilty, should it make it that far) if this prosecutors actions are violating the law / rules of ethics? If its such a slam dunk case then appoint a special prosecutor.

Why run the risk?

a reply to: Xcathdra

She's a triple threat, being young, female and a minority. Race has nothing to do with it.

if this prosecutors actions are violating the law / rules of ethics?

Please explain how this could be.