It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: WarminIndy
I hope you never have to experience anything like it, it's not fun.
originally posted by: marg6043
Well this is interesting, Mr. Gray had a warrant that was issue in March 13th, for assault. if that warrant is still active that will make the reason for arrest and can possibly throw out that he was arrested unlawfully. Depending of the law in some states a person under probation can not have any type of weapon in his possession
I think is a lot we still don't know yet about what is going on as days goes by.
This link have a copy of the warrant, if somebody had posted this please ignore.
universalfreepress.com...#
originally posted by: windword
originally posted by: marg6043
Well this is interesting, Mr. Gray had a warrant that was issue in March 13th, for assault. if that warrant is still active that will make the reason for arrest and can possibly throw out that he was arrested unlawfully. Depending of the law in some states a person under probation can not have any type of weapon in his possession
I think is a lot we still don't know yet about what is going on as days goes by.
This link have a copy of the warrant, if somebody had posted this please ignore.
universalfreepress.com...#
The problem with this defense, is that the arresting officer didn't seem to be aware of this warrant, and didn't include it in his report as probable cause for the chase and subsequent arrest.
Do you see what you're doing? You're trying to alter history to protect the police.
Perhaps, Freddie Grey knew about the warrant, if this is a valid document, and that's why he ran. But, clearly, the arresting officer didn't arrest Freddie Grey on that premise. He arrested him on the premise of an illegal weapon. Those are facts on record. We can't go back and change things to justify this man's death.
I thought we were supposed to say "innocent until proven guilty". If you do it for Gray, you have to do it for them as well. Are they guilty in your mind already?
I am sure glad I'm not in Baltimore.
I thought we were supposed to say "innocent until proven guilty".
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy
WTH? Are the police "Thought Police" now?
I thought we were supposed to say "innocent until proven guilty". If you do it for Gray, you have to do it for them as well. Are they guilty in your mind already?
This is pure denial. There's solid evidence. A man is dead. Someone has to be held accountable. This is the real world. Sometimes, there's a fall guy, falling because the whole system is about to crumble. There are martyrs on both sides, you know.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy
OR TEXAS!
City: 2 gunmen killed outside Muhammad cartoon contest
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy
I thought we were supposed to say "innocent until proven guilty".
As has been pointed out in this thread. It is not the provence of law enforcement to determine innocence or guilt. That is what courts are for.
The police may have well been acting in a perfectly legal manner as far as the arrest goes. That is not the issue. The issue is what occurred afterward. While the arrest will undoubtedly be brought up in court, it will not be the deciding factor. Shouldn't be, anyway.
Yes. I said it would be.
The arrest WILL be brought up in court, because the arrest was the premise for the whole event.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
I just read about the National Criminal Justice Commission Act 2015, can you enlighten us on this?
What is it?
I haven't heard about this.
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the “ National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2013 ”.
Sec. 2. Findings
Congress finds that—
(1) it is in the interest of the Nation to establish a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system;
(2) there has not been a comprehensive study since the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice was established in 1965;
(3) that commission, in a span of 18 months, produced a comprehensive report entitled “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society,” which contained 200 specific recommendations on all aspects of the criminal justice system involving Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, civic organizations, religious institutions, business groups, and individual citizens; and
(4) developments over the intervening 45 years require once again that Federal, State, tribal, and local governments, civic organizations, religious institutions, business groups, and individual citizens come together to review evidence and consider how to improve the criminal justice system.
Sec. 3. Establishment of commission
There is established a commission to be known as the “National Criminal Justice Commission” (referred to in this Act as the “Commission”).
Sec. 4. Purpose of the commission
The Commission shall undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, encompassing current Federal, State, local, and tribal criminal justice policies and practices, and make reform recommendations for the President, Congress, State, local, and tribal governments.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy
No. You're asking me to wash my mind of my personal truth....and... hands up, don't shoot....authority is always right, right?
Who are you going to believe? Me, THIS or your lying eyes?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy
The glove fits.