FREDDY GREY AND A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTOR......

I don't think you're making the point you think you're making. I said exactly what you said, dumbass. Read again. If it wasn't automatic, then it WASN'T an illegal knife. Originally Posted by WombRaider

#1: I know the "point" I am exactly making ... your "interpretation" is wrong.

It is WRONG for two reasons, #1: you omit the words...

.... "or other device for opening "

... a spring to assist opening a knife is .... an "other device"!!!!

#2: As I have mentioned before ... at the time of the arrest if the officer or officers were "reasonably mistaken" ... their actions do not violate "THE LAW" .... AND the OFFICERS' arrest of Gray was NOT AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE .....

But I would never expect you to be even remotely as intelligent and knowledgeable as Justice Roberts:

"The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable
searches and seizures.” Under this standard, a search or
seizure may be permissible even though the justification
for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake. An
officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling
alone in a high-occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover
upon approaching the car that two children are slumped
over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated
the law, but neither has the officer violated the Fourth
Amendment.

"But what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not
one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a
vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a
court later determined that a single working brake light
was all the law required. The question presented is
whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to
the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure
under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can."

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 13–604. Decided December 15, 2014

I'm not arguing with an amateur ...who attempts to cherry pick words.

In Heien the officer thought one needed 2 LIGHTS not just one. So do you think the officer could be "wrong" about whether "other device" would include a "spring to assist" with opening the knife ....

.. does your "switch blade" open by itself?

#1: I know the "point" I am exactly making ... your "interpretation" is wrong.

It is WRONG for two reasons, #1: you omit the words...

.... "or other device for opening "

... a spring to assist opening a knife is .... an "other device"!!!!

#2: As I have mentioned before ... at the time of the arrest if the officer or officers were "reasonably mistaken" ... their actions do not violate "THE LAW" .... AND the OFFICERS' arrest of Gray was NOT AN UNREASONABLE SEIZURE .....

But I would never expect you to be even remotely as intelligent and knowledgeable as Justice Roberts:

"The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable
searches and seizures.” Under this standard, a search or
seizure may be permissible even though the justification
for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake. An
officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling
alone in a high-occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover
upon approaching the car that two children are slumped
over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated
the law, but neither has the officer violated the Fourth
Amendment.

"But what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not
one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a
vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a
court later determined that a single working brake light
was all the law required. The question presented is
whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to
the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure
under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can."

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 13–604. Decided December 15, 2014

I'm not arguing with an amateur ...who attempts to cherry pick words.

In Heien the officer thought one needed 2 LIGHTS not just one. So do you think the officer could be "wrong" about whether "other device" would include a "spring to assist" with opening the knife ....

.. does your "switch blade" open by itself? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Automatic and spring-assisted aren't the same thing. That was my point. Which you missed. Per usual.

I also understand that it might not matter, per the non-violation of the 4th amendment. I get that, dumbass. At the end of the day, it doesn't merit being rendered paralyzed with a broken back, etc.

http://www.knife-depot.com/knife-information-240.html

As a footnote, here's what the Little Prosecutor "KNOWS" ...

"WARRANTLESS ARREST
In General
(a) A police officer may arrest without a warrant a person who
commits or attempts to commit a felony or misdemeanor in the
presence or within the view of the police officer.
(b) A police officer who has probable cause to believe that a felony
or misdemeanor is being committed in the presence or within the view
of the police officer may arrest without a warrant any person whom the
police officer reasonably believes to have committed the crime.
(c) A police officer without a warrant may arrest a person if the
police officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been
committed or attempted and the person has committed or attempted to
commit the felony whether or not in the presence or within the view
of the police officer.
Criminal Procedure Article § 2-202 (Maryland)

Automatic and spring-assisted aren't the same thing. That was my point. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Which is WHY YOU ARE STUPID. "The point" of a Stupid person is irrelevant.

Again you look at the "big picture" ...

as long as the cops get shit canned its ok?

But a spring assisted mechanism is .... an "other device"!!!

So again, you, a Stupid Person, LOOKS AT ONLY ONE ELEMENT IN THE LAW.

What is "disturbing" about the Little Prosecutor is she's as Stupid as you are!!

Which is WHY YOU ARE STUPID. "The point" of a Stupid person is irrelevant.

Again you look at the "big picture" ...

as long as the cops get shit canned its ok?

But a spring assisted mechanism is .... an "other device"!!!

So again, you, a Stupid Person, LOOKS AT ONLY ONE ELEMENT IN THE LAW.

What is "disturbing" about the Little Prosecutor is she's as Stupid as you are!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

I want the truth. That's the difference between you and I. You are personally attacking someone. I simply want the truth, whatever that might be. If it's white cops, then it's white cops. If it's black cops, then it's black cops. I don't know how much more simple I can make it for you.

You're right, I'm looking at the big picture, because regardless of the knife, something happened to that guy that shouldn't have happened. You're over here fucking around about the knife, when there are bigger fish to fry.

I want the truth. That's the difference between you and I. You are personally attacking someone. I simply want the truth, whatever that might be. If it's white cops, then it's white cops. If it's black cops, then it's black cops. I don't know how much more simple I can make it for you.

You're right, I'm looking at the big picture, because regardless of the knife, something happened to that guy that shouldn't have happened. You're over here fucking around about the knife, when there are bigger fish to fry. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The other point you are missing is that the prosecutor made it about the knife!!! Her whole effort collapses on that point while you grandly look at the big picture.

I personally don't care for ex felons carrying knives, especially the kind they can easily conceal then open quickly with a built in mechanism for doing so.

The other point you are missing is that the prosecutor made it about the knife!!! Her whole effort collapses on that point while you grandly look at the big picture.

I personally don't care for ex felons carrying knives, especially the kind they can easily conceal then open quickly with a built in mechanism for doing so. Originally Posted by DSK

Her whole nothing collapses without the knife. They will still face charges for his treatment in custody. Making the arrest legal doesn't negate the fact of what happened to him. That's looking at the big picture, dickskin.

That's looking at the big picture, dickskin. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Now "dickskin" is something that JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot can happily embrace.

Read the law. It clearly states "or other device for opening".

The question is did the police have probable cause to arrest. Probable cause does not require that Gray’s knife be illegal. Instead, the probable cause requirement is satisfied if the police had probable cause to believe the knife was illegal. Under United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), the officers had probable cause if they had a fair reason to believe Gray had an illegal knife, whether or not they turn out to have been correct.

If there is uncertainty as to whether Gray’s knife meets Baltimore’s definition of the kind that’s banned, then the officers presumably had a fair reason to believe Gray possessed an illegal knife — in other words, “probable cause.” At a minimum, the prosecutor will not be able to prove the contrary beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ms. Mosby's case doesn't unravel if the arresting police are determined to have had probable cause; but it speaks to her overcharging of the arresting officers and all others in the Freddy Grey case (hahahaha).

I want the truth. Originally Posted by WombRaider

No you don't! You ONLY WANT YOUR "TRUTH."

Just posted "the TRUTH" ... FROM the SCOTUS and the Maryland legislature.

And you want to argue against that TRUTH.

Ms. Mosby's case .... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I recognize your choice of words ... but that phrase is the problem here ...

It is not "Ms. Mosby's case" ... it is the case of The State of Maryland... as in..

The People vs. 6 cops!

Not "3 Black Women" who want "justice" for Gray!!!!!!...

.. and COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF PUBLICITY ON THE WAY TO THE "LYNCHING"

The liberal chant has always been in the war on terrorists for "us" not to be like "them" .... the Little Prosecutor is doing exactly what she claims to oppose in those she seeks to persecute. Except like her cheerleading President she has the credentials to know better, but she elects not to follow the law and seek HER REVENGE regardless of how she does it ...

Your post implies that EVERY state prosecutor (elected) would see the case in the same way and arrive at the same bill of charges.

I reject that assumption - it is Mrs. Mosby's charges and case. Her political career will likely rise or fall with this case.

They will still face charges for his treatment in custody. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Who is "they"?

But in the meantime she has INTENTIONALLY crapped up the lives of five other officers, who, like Wilson, will be UNEMPLOYABLE as police officers.

Your post implies that EVERY state prosecutor (elected) would see the case in the same way and arrive at the same bill of charges.

I reject that assumption - it is Mrs. Mosby's charges and case. Her political career will likely rise or fall with this case. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No your "assumption" is incorrect. The case is filed in the name of the State of Maryland, and a reasonable guess is that 100% of the prosecutors who actually try cases will at some time or the other explain to a jury that they represent the "State" ... the "community" ... and ask a jury to do their "duty to society"!!

None of them will say ... "my case" ... as it relates to the charges brought against a defendant or defendants. They may reference "my case" or "our case" as to the evidence presented in support of the State's allegations against the defendants.

As a prosecutor she ought not to personalize it as she did, and is doing. That is what I referenced...by ...

"...it is the case of The State of Maryland... as in..

The People vs. 6 cops!"

You're right, I'm looking at the big picture, because regardless of the knife, something happened to that guy that shouldn't have happened. You're over here fucking around about the knife, when there are bigger fish to fry. Originally Posted by WombRaider

This statement is what concerns me personally and professionally about "political prosecutions" and why they end up being "political persecutions" ...

... example ... every year somewhere between 40,000 to 50,000 people die in vehicular accidents ... that doesn't mean 40,000 to 50,000 murders happened.


"You're over here fucking around about the knife,..."

.. you mean the one Gray brought to a gun fight?

As I said before ... you are Stupid. But you have "good company" ...

..... so is the Little Prosecutor and so WAS GRAY.

Let me guess ... you think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?