Posted on 05/01/2015 7:56:27 AM PDT by markomalley
Given that he was arrested on spurious charges I doubt he was on drugs or in possession of drugs or else he’d have been charged with the same. And he wasn’t.
Also, if the police could have used a toxicology report to impugn Gray’s (’character’ be that as it may be) then they would have.
I’m not saying Gray was a nice guy. Apparently he wasn’t.
But in this case he was arrested for a non-reason and he died in custody.
...”In theory her job is to see that justice is done.....In reality it is clear that ‘she has already decided’ who deserves justice and who doesn’t”....
That’s how I saw her announcement as well. Her tone and posturing made it obvious and there was a whole lot more she was holding back beneath the surface....she was actually restraining her emotions as much as possible for her to do....which too could be seen.
Reading the timeline of events, the female officer was not involved in the initial arrest or first part of the transport. So, any charges stemming from that would not apply to her.
Same with one of the male officers, who also has only three charges (Porter).
WRONG.
The general order in question dates back to September 18, 1997.
Here it is:
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf
Relevant portions:
— Whenever an arrestee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure:
> That he/she has been searched and handcuffed, (hands cuffed in the rear), before being placed
in a prisoner transport vehicle or a “C. P.” truck.
> The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated
on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger.
> That the seat/restraint belt is placed securely around the waist or upper body of the arrestee to
prevent the arrestee from maneuvering out of the restraint and possibly causing injury to them or
others.
On a visceral level this feels like they are throwing a chunk of meat to gang of feral dogs with this move....
.....”in this case he was arrested for a non-reason”....
Might be that we’ll see otherwise during trial. I tend to think that will be the case once the facts actually come out.
Important to remember these were initiated just nine days before his arrest....so the seat belt was a non-issue before that time.
Thanks. I just saw that too. I had heard the line about seatbelts only being required a few days before the incident, and it sounded fishy, but had not looked into it further.
The city and the police department are run by black leftists, so why would they release something that impugns Gray's character?
Have they released the tox reports? Have they released the arrest report? How about the arresting officers' statements?
It took lawsuits for Sanford to even admit that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement... and even then, ABC and others tried their hardest to continue to deny that any such assault had been taking place.
From what I am seeing he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Regardless of the type of knife. If it is true that there was a warrant for him he was going to be picked up no matter what.
No. Read the link. The rules were updated nine days before the arest, but the rule requiring seat belts dates to at least 1997.
There is speculation that he had an outstanding warrant, but no evidence that he did. In fact, the police report about his arrest makes no mention of any warrants.
What the hell is it with some people on this site?
The man was arrested for possession of a switchblade and the knife in question was not a switchblade. That’s all.
Holding out in the hopes that a corpse will be charged with something else is ridiculous!
You believe she's a no nonsense prosecutor?
Tell me, how many times was the suspect in question arrested and then released?
If she was such a no nonsense prosecutor, why does Baltimore appear to be a smoldering lawless war zone?
Given his arrest record, he was also likely on probation... and probably a few probation. When you're on probation for drug dealing, you can be re-arrested for hanging with other drug dealers. I had seen early reports (no longer mentioned any where) that the arresting officers observed him in what appeared to be another drug deal in progress when he started to run away.
Something tells me this dude was one of those crooks who, when in custody, complain about anything and everything. Rather than failure to render aid, this could be a situation where the cops thought Gray was crying wolf.
Thank you.
That is an excellent description of her demeanor as I saw it too.
If I was one of the accused I would not have a good feeling about her being impartial and unbiased.
They say "Justice Is Blind" but I believe this woman already has her thumb on the scale.
>> What other facts should be included?
Can we wait until the trial and see?
Or would justice better be served by you taking a rope to the jail and personally hanging the obviously guilty officers?
By the way, can you tell me where your sacred “time line” came from?
Was it an impartial third party — like a jury — that has examined ALL the facts? Or was it from the prosecutor’s office? You know, a party with an ax to grind, and therefore highly motivated to pick suitable facts and even to distort them? A party with NO obligation and NO motivation to present opposing evidence?
I think we know the answer.
Been here before with Angela Corey, and the oh-so-corrupt prosecution team on that kangaroo court.
I know way better than to blindly accept the prosecutor’s version of ANYTHING.
But since you have an ax to grind yourself, you will happily swallow this one-sided crapola as gospel — and promulgate it as such.
Like I told you before — I understand your motivations. You’re a liberal troll. A skillful one, but still...
No sale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.