Posted on 05/20/2015 9:50:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The office of Baltimore City states attorney Marilyn Mosby has added a new wrinkle to the Freddie Gray case, alleging in a court filing that the 25-year-old was illegally arrested by Baltimore police officers even before they recovered a knife on his person.
In the motion, filed Monday, deputy states attorney Michael Schatzow rebuts a May 8 motion for dismissal and recusal filed by attorneys for the six officers charged in the case. Schatzow calls the attorneys claims that Mosby has numerous conflicts of interest premature, frivolous, illogical.
Schatzow also addressed Grays knife, which became a central part of the case when Mosby announced charges against the officers on May 1. Gray was arrested on April 12 and died a week later. His death was ruled a homicide, and he was determined to have sustained a broken neck while riding in the back of a police van.
During her press conference, Mosby stated that Gray was illegally arrested and that his knife was legal under Maryland law.
But in a May 8 motion for dismissal and recusal, attorneys for the officers disputed Mosbys knife claim. They argued that while Grays spring-action knife was legal in Maryland, it was illegal in Baltimore.
In his response, Schatzow disputed the notion that Mosby argued that the legality of Grays arrest hinges on the knife.
Instead, he asserted that the statement of probable cause against the officers makes clear that Mr. Gray was arrested well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife.
Mr. Gray was handcuffed at his surrendering location, moved a few feet away, and placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind his back, all before the arresting officers found the knife, Schatzow stated.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Imagine the Zimmerman case if Rachel Jeantel had been the district attorney instead of a witness.
Stare at the unknown America and Enjoy Each Moment ... Please ... Freedom Is Beauty!!!
Handcuffs *do not* equal arrest.
If the officer feels it is necessary for safety purposes, it is allowed prior to an arrest. Of course, at that point, the arrest part is not certain.
I’d suppose though, that in court an officer would have to be able to provide good rationale for the “safety purposes” to be valid.
Losing another outrage case would sure come in handy for the left right on time.
However those claims are not "wrong", "false", or "incorrect".
Well, that's not what she said at the press conference - indeed, she was adamant about it, which has now shown itself to be nonsense, and this alternate argument now being made is embarrassingly stupid - restraining someone and arresting them are not the same thing.
Just to cross the ‘T’ here...
If Rachel had taken that offer to go to college and had finished it as a lawyer, and then become the State attorney, we’d have a Mosby.
Undergraduate....law school....state attorney.....all courtesy of affirmative action and racial preferences.
“Clearly she has now determined that the cops were right and the knife was an illegal switchblade under the local ordinance.”
I doubt it. More likely she realizes that the cops perception of the law was backed up by past experience, because the Baltimore law has not really been tested. That is good enough for the cops.
The law probably would not hold up in court; but that is not the issue, the issue would be whether it was reasonable for the police to believe that the law would apply.
I bet that the police can show evidence that local prosecutors backed them on similar knife cases.
“”Schatzow calls the attorneys claims that Mosby has numerous conflicts of interest premature, frivolous, illogical.”
Dazzle the defense attorneys with BS adjectives - did he run out of them? There are plenty more where those came from but I don’t think there’s much brain power in that prosecutor’s office..
He was a known drug dealer who was fleeing. I think that is reason enough to restrain him while they see what is going on.
If you are driving and see a cop, do you speed up to get away? If so I’ll bet you get stopped just for acting suspicious. No one likes to see a police car when they are driving. Right away you check your odometer. Guilty people flee.
She did take up that offer from the rap producer or whatever he was, IIRC. She got her GED and is in college. Another Benjamin Crump in the making.
You win the thread. HA!!!
I fully expect to see machete waving crazies pouring out of the cities and into the suburbs in my lifetime.
question to chip on her shoulder the size of Everest prosecutor..
Does a citizen have to stop when ordered to by a policeman? YES or NO?
If citizens fails to stop, and indeed flees upon being ordered to stop, do police have the right to chase said person? YES or NO?
If the answer to the first two questions is YES. Then obviously a law was broken (failure to follow an order to stop from a policeman). And thus, the officer/s had the discretion to arrest that person for breaking the law and to let a court determine later their guilt or innocence in the matter.
If the answer to the first question is NO. Then basically the affirmative action prosecutor with a chip on her shoulder is saying no one ever has to pull over when a cop comes up behind them on the road with their lights on. Or that a citizen can ignore instructions from a cop to stay clear of an area for whatever reason, ect.
Yes you can. It’s called “Unprovoked Flight”.
I think this boils down to whether a know drug felon on parole fleeing when he see an officer meets the threshold of probable cause. In the end, I suspect all the charges will be thrown out and Baltimore will burn again.
Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled that cuffs can be used in a Terry Stop?
All Freddie had to do was not run and calmly challenge being detained.
“Am I under arrest? . “Am I free to go?”
What about the outstanding arrest order, hmmm??
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.