Black Cop Driving F. Gray in Police Van in Baltimore Charged with 2nd Degree Murder!!

Why would he retract his original story? Was he that mistaken, or was he persuaded? I guess the world will never know.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

The world may not know, but someone will..... I suspect at least 12.

You think the guy severed his own spinal cord? That seems.....unlikely. Originally Posted by timpage

Who said his spinal cord was "severed"? I'm talking about someone with a medical background that would qualify him or her to diagnose a "severed" spinal cord. Not an Al Sharpton.

Come on Mojo, I know you are an intelligent guy. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

What was your prediction on the Brown-Wilson incident in Missour?

And the Martin-Zimmerman matter in Florida?

How about OJ Simpson .. .before his criminal trial?

And the Garner-NYPD confrontation?

What was your prediction on the Brown-Wilson incident in Missour?

And the Martin-Zimmerman matter in Florida?

How about OJ Simpson .. .before his criminal trial?

And the Garner-NYPD confrontation? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Wilson did what he was supposed to do.

Zimmerman got away with murder.

I honestly never paid much attention to the OJ case as it was going on, so I never had an opinion one way or the other.

Again, no wrongdoing on the part of police. Garner signed his own death warrant one Big Mac at a time.

No two cases are alike. I form my opinion based on the facts of the case.

You wondered how skilled the driver must be to injure Gray while the other arrestee was unharmed. First off, Gray was alone in the van at first, the other man was picked up later. So the injury to Gray could have occurred before the other man was picked up. Secondly, I have yet to find any information indicating whether the other prisoner was seatbelted in or not. If he was seatbelted as he was supposed to be, then he wouldn't have been injured the way Gray was.

I form my opinion based on the facts of the case.

You wondered how skilled the driver must be to injure Gray while the other arrestee was unharmed. First off, Gray was alone in the van at first, the other man was picked up later. So the injury to Gray could have occurred before the other man was picked up. Secondly, I have yet to find any information indicating whether the other prisoner was seatbelted in or not. If he was seatbelted as he was supposed to be, then he wouldn't have been injured the way Gray was. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Where are the FACTS in the Gray case? What you just wrote?

And you think Zimmerman "got away with murder"? Based on supposition?

You should probably do some LEGAL research on the elements of "murder" in Maryland, which will more than likely be about the same as Florida. If I recall they are both Model Penal Code states, but may have some minor differences. Both will require the requisite intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the death of an individual.

The prosecutor in the Zimmerman case over-charged, ...

...... and so did the DA in the case of the driver. She's "grand-standing," because she's trying to make a name for herself. That's why I brought up OJ Simpson. The "facts" of each case may be different, and always are IMO, but the human egos often have similar characteristics with regard to the search for acceptance and confirmation. This young lady undoubtedly enjoys her moment in the limelight. Hopefully she will step back and let a professional direct and craft the prosecution, but I'm getting the feeling her ego won't let her.

So you mean you think Gray is more capable of propelling himself into the wall than the van is capable of doing? There is absolutely no logic in that. How did he do it? His legs and arms were shackled. Go lay down on a floor. Put your hands by your side and hold your feet together. Now see how much force you can generate by propelling yourself forward. I'll eat my garters if you can come anywhere close to the force necessary to sever your spine.

This wasn't the first time this happened either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...ry.html#page=1 Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Maybe his injuries weren't sustained in the van. I just find it hard to believe the other prisoner never mentioned the erratic driving. Because this whole case is Gray was not properly restrained in the van and the driver purposely drove in such a manner that would cause an unrestraint passenger to be thrown about violently. Maybe the officer driving didn't intend to kill gray, but it did. If on the other hand if the officer driving the van was driving in a normal fashion and the other prisoner's account is accurate then we don't have a brutality claim on the police. Instead we have a nut full of dope intentionally trying to do harm to himself. A dude on enough junk is capable of all kinds shit including mortally injuring themselves. Or gray's injuries were sustained when he was taken out of the van by officers.
Jim

Maybe his injuries weren't sustained in the van. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Here is the key and motivation:

"“If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different
levels can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me
where we’re going to get it in our country,” she asked, referring to
herself, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby and Attorney General Loretta
Lynch."

I honestly never paid much attention to the OJ case as it was going on, so I never had an opinion one way or the other. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

The Simpson case was theater. A stage to catapult a career. Those defending him already had their "career," but the prosecutors were trying to begin theirs.

The State's attorney has four months in office.

Where are the FACTS in the Gray case? What you just wrote?

And you think Zimmerman "got away with murder"? Based on supposition?

You should probably do some LEGAL research on the elements of "murder" in Maryland, which will more than likely be about the same as Florida. If I recall they are both Model Penal Code states, but may have some minor differences. Both will require the requisite intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in the death of an individual.

The prosecutor in the Zimmerman case over-charged, ...

...... and so did the DA in the case of the driver. She's "grand-standing," because she's trying to make a name for herself. That's why I brought up OJ Simpson. The "facts" of each case may be different, and always are IMO, but the human egos often have similar characteristics with regard to the search for acceptance and confirmation. This young lady undoubtedly enjoys her moment in the limelight. Hopefully she will step back and let a professional direct and craft the prosecution, but I'm getting the feeling her ego won't let her. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where are the facts in the Gray case? Yes, what I've been writing. Fact: Gray's spine was not severed when he entered the van. How do we know this? The video of his arrest shows him moving his legs. It is possible that his neck was injured, but not to the point of severing his spine during his arrest. However, his spine was intact when he was put into the van. It was not intact when he was taken out. Fact: The idea that he could sever his own spine is simply laughable. Have you ever seen a human spine? It is very thick, fibrous, and tough. Even if the vertebrae has been broken, it still takes a great deal of force to sever the spine.

I agree that the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case over reached. Second degree murder is a hard sell. The prosecutor should have gone for manslaughter charges instead. That doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman got away with murder. We can argue that case all you want, but my opinion won't change, nor will yours, so why bother?

Maybe his injuries weren't sustained in the van. I just find it hard to believe the other prisoner never mentioned the erratic driving. Because this whole case is Gray was not properly restrained in the van and the driver purposely drove in such a manner that would cause an unrestraint passenger to be thrown about violently. Maybe the officer driving didn't intend to kill gray, but it did. If on the other hand if the officer driving the van was driving in a normal fashion and the other prisoner's account is accurate then we don't have a brutality claim on the police. Instead we have a nut full of dope intentionally trying to do harm to himself. A dude on enough junk is capable of all kinds shit including mortally injuring themselves. Or gray's injuries were sustained when he was taken out of the van by officers.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I find anything the other prisoner has to say hard to believe. He isn't exactly an ideal witness after all.

I am sure the driver didn't intend to kill Gray. That would make no sense. However, as the link I provided demonstrates, other prisoners have suffered spinal injuries from being thrown around in the back of a police van. They even have a name for it. They call it giving a prisoner a "rough ride". Since the driver is a long time police veteran, it is reasonable to expect him to be aware of the grievous injuries possible from rough riding. So manslaughter with depraved heart indifference would be an appropriate charge.

Lastly, you mention the drugs in his system. Ever been doped up on a prescription narcotic? The side effect it produces is lethargy, not hyperactivity. Same for the THC found in his system. Both are soporifics.

According to the timeline, the other prisoner wasn't picked up until the last stop the officers made before reaching the station. They stopped several other times before picking up the other suspect, ostensibly to "check" on Gray, which in itself makes little sense. Why stop to check on him? At the last stop before picking up the prisoner, Gray was reportedly unresponsive. Yet this didn't set off any alarm bells. They just hopped back in the van and drove on. So what even prompted them to stop in the first place?

Seriously, if you guy can't see that this case stinks to high heaven, then there is no hope for you.

An officer has both a moral duty and a legal obligation to safeguard his prisoner. They are all taught that. The prisoner was probably guilty of contempt of cop, the crowd pissed off the officers, and the driver felt like he would teach the guy a lesson.

I guess that the fictional story of Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Louden Downey's "code red" of Private William Santiago at Gitmo probably never crossed the Officer's mind as he allegedly slung the prisoner around to teach him how to be a better prisoner.

Once (if) we know the truth, the truth will set us free.

Where are the facts in the Gray case? Yes, what I've been writing. Fact: Gray's spine was not severed when he entered the van. How do we know this? The video of his arrest shows him moving his legs. It is possible that his neck was injured, but not to the point of severing his spine during his arrest. However, his spine was intact when he was put into the van. It was not intact when he was taken out. Fact: The idea that he could sever his own spine is simply laughable. Have you ever seen a human spine? It is very thick, fibrous, and tough. Even if the vertebrae has been broken, it still takes a great deal of force to sever the spine.

I agree that the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case over reached. Second degree murder is a hard sell. The prosecutor should have gone for manslaughter charges instead. That doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman got away with murder. We can argue that case all you want, but my opinion won't change, nor will yours, so why bother?



I find anything the other prisoner has to say hard to believe. He isn't exactly an ideal witness after all.

I am sure the driver didn't intend to kill Gray. That would make no sense. However, as the link I provided demonstrates, other prisoners have suffered spinal injuries from being thrown around in the back of a police van. They even have a name for it. They call it giving a prisoner a "rough ride". Since the driver is a long time police veteran, it is reasonable to expect him to be aware of the grievous injuries possible from rough riding. So manslaughter with depraved heart indifference would be an appropriate charge.

Lastly, you mention the drugs in his system. Ever been doped up on a prescription narcotic? The side effect it produces is lethargy, not hyperactivity. Same for the THC found in his system. Both are soporifics.

According to the timeline, the other prisoner wasn't picked up until the last stop the officers made before reaching the station. They stopped several other times before picking up the other suspect, ostensibly to "check" on Gray, which in itself makes little sense. Why stop to check on him? At the last stop before picking up the prisoner, Gray was reportedly unresponsive. Yet this didn't set off any alarm bells. They just hopped back in the van and drove on. So what even prompted them to stop in the first place?

Seriously, if you guy can't see that this case stinks to high heaven, then there is no hope for you. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Yeah, you're definitely right. This whole case stinks. I am just trying to decipher the whole narrative and make some sense out of it. Because the way it's being presented is a bit hard to believe.

Jim

Where are the facts in the Gray case? Yes, what I've been writing.

I find anything the other prisoner has to say hard to believe. He isn't exactly an ideal witness after all.
Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

What you "find" and what you "think" are not facts. All you have is what you see and hear on the news. Unless of course you were personally present at the time of his arrest, when he was placed in the van, while he was riding in the van, and when he was removed from the van to be escorted into the facility ...

..to make your scenario work you have to "assume" that his spinal cord was damaged when he entered the van and then his spinal SEPARATED while he was being jostled around in the van "ON PURPOSE to KILL HIM."

Fortunately for criminal defendants the burden is ...

.. beyond a reasonable doubt.

That standard of proof would even apply to you personally.

And that is also the reason why we have a disagreement with the Zimmerman case ... you have decided the outcome you want and you cherry pick facts and fill in the gaps with your "assumptions" ... for instance ... you don't believe the other arrestee without even observing his testimony and listening to what he has to describe....or to be it more direct ... you "find anything the other prisoner has to say hard to believe. And you believe "He isn't exactly an ideal witness after all."

Since the "other prisoner" who WAS INSIDE WITH GRAY is inconsistent with your preconceived notion of what "ought to be," then you summarily dismiss his reported observations .. .as being "incredible," because .... they don't fit your scenario.

Let's see ... he's not an "ideal witness" because he got arrested? Because he has committed crimes? Or what is it about him that makes him not "an ideal witness"? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen an "ideal witness" .... on or off the witness stand. How about you?

Yeah, you're definitely right. This whole case stinks. I am just trying to decipher the whole narrative and make some sense out of it. Because the way it's being presented is a bit hard to believe.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Every now and then people need to be reminded that the burden of proof rests with the accuser. Not the accused.

Some call it "due process" while others refer to it as a roadblock to a good ole fashion lynching. I mean, why waste time and money. Just string them up, we know they are guilty!!

(Sarcasm Alert!!!!)

What you "find" and what you "think" are not facts. All you have is what you see and hear on the news. Unless of course you were personally present at the time of his arrest, when he was placed in the van, while he was riding in the van, and when he was removed from the van to be escorted into the facility ...

..to make your scenario work you have to "assume" that his spinal cord was damaged when he entered the van and then his spinal SEPARATED while he was being jostled around in the van "ON PURPOSE to KILL HIM."

Fortunately for criminal defendants the burden is ...

.. beyond a reasonable doubt.

That standard of proof would even apply to you personally.

And that is also the reason why we have a disagreement with the Zimmerman case ... you have decided the outcome you want and you cherry pick facts and fill in the gaps with your "assumptions" ... for instance ... you don't believe the other arrestee without even observing his testimony and listening to what he has to describe....or to be it more direct ... you "find anything the other prisoner has to say hard to believe. And you believe "He isn't exactly an ideal witness after all."

Since the "other prisoner" who WAS INSIDE WITH GRAY is inconsistent with your preconceived notion of what "ought to be," then you summarily dismiss his reported observations .. .as being "incredible," because .... they don't fit your scenario.

Let's see ... he's not an "ideal witness" because he got arrested? Because he has committed crimes? Or what is it about him that makes him not "an ideal witness"? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen an "ideal witness" .... on or off the witness stand. How about you? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Fact: His legs were working when he was placed in the van. This is confirmed from video footage. In essence, we were all there when he was arrested because we can all observe Gray moving his legs as he was being placed in the van.

Fact: When he was removed from the van, his legs were no longer working because his spine was severed.

There are two problems with the other detainee. First off, any prosecutor knows that criminals make lousy witnesses. Doesn't mean they won't use them, but their credibility is always questionable. After all, they have an incentive to lie.

Secondly, the other detainee was only in the van for the last part of the drive. The van made several stops before the other detainee was even picked up. The detainee cannot testify to what happened before he was put in the van.

He went into the van with an intact spine, and came out with a severed spine. There are really only two possibilities here. He did it to himself, or he was slammed into the metal divider due to being unrestrained. There is no Option C unless you would like to entertain the possibility of an alien abduction.

The idea that he could have severed his own spine by slamming his own head into the wall is ridiculous. Its laughable. I invite you to do an experiment to see if you can do it. Lay on the floor. Hold your arms behind your back. Hold your legs together. Now try and drive your head into anything, and see if you can even generate enough force to give yourself a good goose egg.

We are now in "Bizzarro World".

Street thugs, punks, drug dealers, and thieves are now "revolutionaries"
The Bloods and Crips are now "peace keepers"
Al Sharpton is a "statesman".

A CNN reporter asked some young people what would happen now. They said the community would settle for nothing less than guilty verdicts, or what happenned the first few nights would only be a perquisite to what will happen after.

But this is what is really going to happen. Corporations and businesses will see Baltimore as a worthless cesspool, run by inept polititians who offer nothing but the rhetoric of pander.

Business will dry up, and the already blighted landscape of ghettos will grow. With no tax base, the city will start to run into even more financial trouble. Anybody with any sense will get out.

And then, in a few years, we will be reading about another big city bankruptcy.

You reap what you sow. Baltimore has planted the seed for a whole new crop of thugs, thieves, street bums, drug dealers, and addicts.

But what do you expect when you allow the animals run the zoo.

Your shithole of a city will become an even bigger shithole. Enjoy.