BREAKING: Van Driver In Freddie Gray Case Found Not Guilty On All Counts

a reply to: Greven

I have to wonder why you're so obsessed with this point rather than the OP.

Okay, Freddie ran and it wasn't illegal because he hadn't been detained or taken into custody yet. Feel better?

As for his criminal history, again I have to ask why the obsession? Arrests or convictions, no matter, because he was a known element in the patrol area. And he wasn't known because of his charitable contributions to the neighborhood.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not to mention he was known to the officers, including his criminal history, and was on probation, which changes the dynamic in which police can make contact with you and what your required to do under said circumstances.

By ignoring the important factors it makes it easier for him to paint a picture of law enforcement and blame them for what occurred.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yea but...but....jackboots, man!

I just don't get the laser focus on two points that are, in the grand scheme of things, minor when compared to everything else and really have little to no impact on the situation as a whole. Because as you said, there are other mitigating factors that outweigh them.

Well I get it, on that "blame the cops" level. Just not beyond that.

Well considering the population is some 350m that doesn't seem very common does it??

See what I did there? Your logic is ignorant.

a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

and trying to suggest police become heavy handed when someone is trying to kill them is a bit ridiculous.

That is ridiculous, using your logic i would then say you are making out all police are victims

Of course police are going to become heavy handed if someone is trying to kill them, anyone would civilians included.....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No more so than others trying to make all civilians, including grey, as victims.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

I will take my law enforcement training, background and 10+ years in 2 states over your lack of knowledge and understanding of how the law works.

It doesn't appear to afford you any ability to argue reasonably, however.

Fleeing unprovoked from the police, in conjunction with other factors mentioned, gave them justification to detain and search Freddie Gray. This is in line with SCOTUS opinion. It is not, however, a crime.

If you feel otherwise, you are wrong. Your feelings and opinions do not trump the law. If you have a law in the states you have worked that says merely fleeing the police unprovoked is a crime, quote it and prove me wrong.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Incorrect, when he started running he was chased and told to stop. You are out of your league.

Why was he not charged with evading arrest?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

I have to wonder why you're so obsessed with this point rather than the OP.

Okay, Freddie ran and it wasn't illegal because he hadn't been detained or taken into custody yet. Feel better?

As for his criminal history, again I have to ask why the obsession? Arrests or convictions, no matter, because he was a known element in the patrol area. And he wasn't known because of his charitable contributions to the neighborhood.

Just look at the thread and note the many instances of people arguing that fleeing from the police is a crime in and of itself, apparently including fellow LEO Xcathdra.

One must first draw the boundaries where reality lies. Thank you for being part of reality. Recall, this line of discussion began as a response to missed_gear. (e: to clarify, it was not the intent to continue arguing about a rather self-evident thing, but I am forced to rebut the multitude of responses before I can continue with something more interesting)

Perhaps you should ask those who keep bringing it up. Arrests and convictions kinda matter, if one is going to argue that he's a criminal who should be locked up. A 'known person' and all... yet, repeated dismissed cases and findings of innocence over several years despite frequent arrests is kind of odd, don't you think?

Of course, arrests aren't in a vacuum either... employers can look them up and even if these arrests don't lead to convictions, it hurts your outlooks. Freddie Gray - who was poisoned by lead paint as a child, born premature to a druggie mother, and convicted on drug charges later in life - had it even worse. Of course he was a 'known person' on the streets - that's the only place he could work. Even getting arrested can cause one to lose their job.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not to mention he was known to the officers, including his criminal history, and was on probation, which changes the dynamic in which police can make contact with you and what your required to do under said circumstances.

By ignoring the important factors it makes it easier for him to paint a picture of law enforcement and blame them for what occurred.

Just put words in my mouth why don't you.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yea but...but....jackboots, man!

I just don't get the laser focus on two points that are, in the grand scheme of things, minor when compared to everything else and really have little to no impact on the situation as a whole. Because as you said, there are other mitigating factors that outweigh them.

Well I get it, on that "blame the cops" level. Just not beyond that.

I am disappointed, Shamrock. We've discussed matters before, but this is your reaction?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Well considering the population is some 350m that doesn't seem very common does it??

See what I did there? Your logic is ignorant.

a reply to: Greven

Certainly.

Of course, if we segregate the population into job categories, being a police officer is - while higher on the list than many jobs - not near the most dangerous.

a reply to: Greven

Resisting a lawful detention, arrest or stop...

Illinoise vs. Wardlow (SCOTUS ruling)

The moment he fled he created the reasonable suspicion, and first justification, the police used to justify their pursuit, detention and arrest of Freddie Grey. Secondly you are ignoring the fact he was on probation, where you cannot flee from the police.

Tell me - How many times did the officers who pursued Grey order him to stop while being identifiable as police? Of that number how many times did Grey comply with that lawful command?

He did not comply = resisting a lawful detention, arrest or stop (§9–408 - Resisting Arrest Maryland statute).

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Incorrect, when he started running he was chased and told to stop. You are out of your league.

Why was he not charged with evading arrest?

Because you cannot bring charges against a dead person.

a reply to: Greven

I didnt put words in your mouth. I was pointing out the factors you are unfamiliar with / intentionally ignoring.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

Resisting a lawful detention, arrest or stop...

Illinoise vs. Wardlow (SCOTUS ruling)

The moment he fled he created the reasonable suspicion, and first justification, the police used to justify their pursuit, detention and arrest of Freddie Grey. Secondly you are ignoring the fact he was on probation, where you cannot flee from the police.

Tell me - How many times did the officers who pursued Grey order him to stop while being identifiable as police? Of that number how many times did Grey comply with that lawful command?

He did not comply = resisting a lawful detention, arrest or stop (§9–408 - Resisting Arrest Maryland statute).

That's all fine - though I am interested in your probation reasoning.

You tell me how many officers ordered him to stop.

The courts disagree with you about §9–408.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Incorrect, when he started running he was chased and told to stop. You are out of your league.

Why was he not charged with evading arrest?

Because you cannot bring charges against a dead person.

Fair enough. However, this is not what he was arrested for, leading him to be placed in the van where he suffered mortal injuries.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

I didnt put words in your mouth. I was pointing out the factors you are unfamiliar with / intentionally ignoring.

You said this:
"By ignoring the important factors it makes it easier for him to paint a picture of law enforcement and blame them for what occurred."

Of course, you've been blaming Freddie Gray for his own death since a few weeks after it happened. This from 5/2/2015:

originally posted by: Xcathdra
A person in the back seat of a vehicle travelling at 70 miles per hour can bang his head against the side of the car and injure himself without it being because of physics, the car travelling 70 miles an hour, or the person driving.

e: Anyway, this is getting tiresome. Freddie Gray was in state custody when he died. The responsibility for his welfare, presuming the injury happened in the van, is with the driver. That's part of the whole restricting freedom bit of arrests. I and others believe he failed in his duties. To the extent of murder? That depends on what exactly happened, but that bit has been rather hard to discern.

originally posted by: Greven
That's all fine - though I am interested in your probation reasoning.

Being on probation requires the person to comply with law enforcement. Failure to do so can result in a probation violation and being sent back to prison to finish out the original sentence. When we run a person and receive a probation or parole "hit" we have to give a response as to the reason for contact and the outcome of the encounter. Fleeing from law enforcement would be grounds for revocation.

originally posted by: Greven
You tell me how many officers ordered him to stop.

No - you tell me. You are the one arguing that running from the police is not a criminal offense.

originally posted by: Greven
The courts disagree with you about §9–408.

uhm you need to re-read the opinion and understand what they are saying. My comment stands and is supported by the opinion you linked.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Incorrect, when he started running he was chased and told to stop. You are out of your league.

Why was he not charged with evading arrest?

Because you cannot bring charges against a dead person.

Fair enough. However, this is not what he was arrested for, leading him to be placed in the van where he suffered mortal injuries.

Officer said Freddie Gray resisted arrest but showed no sign of physical distress

Considering charges were never filed against Grey we dont know what all he was charged with. The only reason the knife is an issue is because the PA didn't know what the law said and commented the knife was legal and by extension the arrest was unlawful, to the media (when in fact the possession of the knife was illegal).

a reply to: Greven

The trial result where the transport officer was found not guilty says otherwise. Not only did he comply with the law, he did stop and check on the prisoner. I found it telling that the PA attempted to hide evidence that would exonerate the defendant. The judges summation spoke to the fact the driver could not have known what Grey's medical condition was and when he questioned the prosecution on the rough ride claim the prosecution could not identify any specifics to support that claim.

As for what others think verdicts are issued in a court of law and not a court of public opinion. The very fact people spouting off dont know or understand the law and ts application is red flag #1. Refusing to consider all information, like Grey intentionally injuring himself, is red flag #2. The fact the PA filed charges without ever allowing the IA investigation to occur was red flag #3.

In Maryland second degree murder requires the person to act in a depraved manner that resulted in death (like a rough ride). In this case the prosecution could not come close to that mark.

First Degree Murder requirements -

In general
(a) A murder is in the first degree if it is:
(1) a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing;
(2) committed by lying in wait;
(3) committed by poison; or
(4) committed in the perpetration of or an attempt to perpetrate:
(i) arson in the first degree;
(ii) burning a barn, stable, tobacco house, warehouse, or other outbuilding that:
1. is not parcel to a dwelling; and
2. contains cattle, goods, wares, merchandise, horses, grain, hay, or tobacco;
(iii) burglary in the first, second, or third degree;
(iv) carjacking or armed carjacking;
(v) escape in the first degree from a State correctional facility or a local correctional facility;
(vi) kidnapping under § 3-502 or § 3-503(a)(2) of this article;
(vii) mayhem;
(viii) rape;
(ix) robbery under § 3-402 or § 3-403 of this article;
(x) sexual offense in the first or second degree;
(xi) sodomy; or
(xii) a violation of § 4-503 of this article concerning destructive devices.

If nothing meets the above its second degree -

2nd Degree Murder -

In general
(a) A murder that is not in the first degree under § 2-201 of this subtitle is in the second degree.

You are correct that while in state custody responsibility for the suspects safety falls to the officer. However when the suspect behaves in a manner that causes injuries to himself we run into issues. Mr. Grey was handcuffed and feet hobbled and was placed on the floor in the back of the van. If Grey attempted to place himself in a different position that will fall on Grey given the type of transport. The driver did in fact stop and check on Grey and he was alive at that time.

Since the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence and the ME told the lead detective, on 2 separate occasions, the death was accidental, one has to question the prosecutions motives.

The PA should be investigated for malicious prosecution and the PA who was sanctioned for a brady violation should be terminated. The remaining officers should have their charges dismissed.

What we witnessed with this entire mess is what happens when politics gets in the way of a thorough investigation and how a court of public opinion is incapable of understanding the different facets of the case and associated laws.

Contrary to popular belief Law Enforcement is not required by any law (that im familiar with although departmental policy may require it) to provide a person with medical treatment, whether the suspect asks or not. If they request and we deny the request it will be looked at in terms of did the inaction contribute to the suspects death. In this case denying the request and allowing medical staff at the jail to make a determination was appropriate.

Even more damning is the judge and his background.
1. He used to be a PA who prosecuted police misconduct cases.


Given his background as a prosecutor I would think the judge knows exactly what he is doing and looking at. If misconduct was present and the state was able to actually make their case I am sure the judge would have crucified the officers in question.