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

Ok..you can continue to call it the "Maryland Case".... And when you call it the "Maryland Case", ..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You and the media call it what you wish so you all aren't confused ...

.. I will follow the lead of the SCOTUS .... and call it ...

.. Maryland vs. "6 Baltimore PD oficers"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/12-207.htm

OCTOBER TERM, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MARYLAND v. KING
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 12–207. Argued February 26, 2013—Decided June 3, 2013

In the meantime you all figure out what you're gonna call the case when a another prosecutor (special prosecutor?) takes it over while Little Prosecutor sits on the bench.....and then you all can decide if "she" doesn't get a conviction, since you all say it is "her case" ... will the next State's Attorney of the City of Baltimore who replaces her be able to file his or her "own charges" against the 6 pd officers and prosecute them .... since it is "her case" and therefore wouldn't be barred by double jeopardy!!! Whereas if it were the State's case it would be.

Is there an allegation that others "cheered on" the driver? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would consider that if a reasonable officer were seated in the cab with the black officer driving the van transporting the prisoner, and he was aware of the mistreatment and did nothing, he is criminally culpable. I added the "cheer him on" comment as a supposition, unsupported by any known facts, as a reasonable possibility. I do not know if he has clean hands or not. My mistake - sorry.

I believe the criminal culpability of the arresting officers who correctly ascertained the illegal nature of the knife should be zero culpability based upon both the facts and the law you stated earlier.

I would consider that if a reasonable officer were seated in the cab with the black officer driving the van transporting the prisoner, and he was aware of the mistreatment and did nothing, he is criminally culpable. Originally Posted by DSK

I would agree with that scenario using the term "mistreatment" based on intentional actions by the driver.

The portion of the "Rodney King" tape, which was generally not seen, and was not circulated by the media, was the first part in which he was arrested and handcuffed by a female state trooper, during which he was cooperative. At the request of the other officers, who were not state troopers AND HAD NO SUPERVISOR STATUS OVER HER, she uncuffed King and allowed them to "take charge of him," which resulted in the beating seen widely on the news.

As far as I am aware she was never even disciplined, and certainly was not charged. She should have been fired and charged. King was her prisoner and she turned him over to them. She was at least a co-conspirator in the Federal civil rights case.

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. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They, would the officers, dumbass. I keep forgetting that I have to explain everything to you, as if you were a child. How do you know she intentionally did anything? That is complete conjecture and opinion on your part. You have no way of knowing that.

They, would the officers, dumbass. I keep forgetting that I have to explain everything to you, as if you were a child. How do you know she intentionally did anything? That is complete conjecture and opinion on your part. You have no way of knowing that. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Everything you post is ..

...complete conjecture and opinion on your part, AND You have no way of knowing ANY OF IT.

Which is why you ...

.... are STUPID.

Explain to me? You can't even explain why you keep showing how ...

... STUPID YOU ARE.

If the arrest is lawful ... because THEY had probable cause to arrest .... then..

... what are the "charges" for which THEY will be prosecuted ... ????

And identify who THEY ARE BY NAME!!!!! Or are you too STUPID to do that?

Quit acting like a snotty little whiny baby. Answer the fucking question.

I would agree with that scenario using the term "mistreatment" based on intentional actions by the driver.

The portion of the "Rodney King" tape, which was generally not seen, and was not circulated by the media, was the first part in which he was arrested and handcuffed by a female state trooper, during which he was cooperative. At the request of the other officers, who were not state troopers AND HAD NO SUPERVISOR STATUS OVER HER, she uncuffed King and allowed them to "take charge of him," which resulted in the beating seen widely on the news.

As far as I am aware she was never even disciplined, and certainly was not charged. She should have been fired and charged. King was her prisoner and she turned him over to them. She was at least a co-conspirator in the Federal civil rights case. Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is simply not true. Firstly, California doesn't have 'state troopers'. They have California Highway Patrol. He wasn't cooperative. He was acting bizarre and at one point, the female CHP officer thought he had a gun. She ordered him to the ground, and at that point, the ranking LAPD officer on the scene took control of the arrest. A CHP officer never cuffed him. At the time, LAPD were taught not to approach a subject with their guns drawn, for fear of having it taken away and used against them. The CHP did not employ this tactic and this is why Koon said he took tactical control of the situation. It's ironic that you mention the portion not usually seen in the Holliday video, because it was that portion that actually helped in acquitting the officers.

When I told you I wanted the truth, that's what I meant. I don't care who it looks bad for.

Everything you post is ..

...complete conjecture and opinion on your part, AND You have no way of knowing ANY OF IT.

Which is why you ...

.... are STUPID.

Explain to me? You can't even explain why you keep showing how ...

... STUPID YOU ARE.

If the arrest is lawful ... because THEY had probable cause to arrest .... then..

... what are the "charges" for which THEY will be prosecuted ... ????

And identify who THEY ARE BY NAME!!!!! Or are you too STUPID to do that?

Quit acting like a snotty little whiny baby. Answer the fucking question. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If the arrest is lawful, what charges will they face? So as long as the arrest is lawful, the police officers can beat the shit out of you and it's ok? A man died in custody and you've got your goddamn panties in a twist over whether the arrest was lawful. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter whether it was lawful or not. Someone has to take responsibility for the death of a person in custody.

I don't take orders from you, dipshit. You know who they are.

Where you at LL? Do you deny that you lied about the Rodney King situation. Your facts were incorrect. I'm sure you're scouring the internet as we speak, for some random assertion to back your incorrect play. Read up on these two links. They back up my assertions.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...pdaccount.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

By your standards, even the legal reporter for the NY Times gets it wrong when they call it the Freddy Gray Case..........and when everyone was calling it the Kenneth Starr case (against Clinton), they were all wrong.

Me thinks you are operating in your own world of reality.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us...ture.html?_r=0

You and the media call it what you wish so you all aren't confused ...

.. I will follow the lead of the SCOTUS .... and call it ...

.. Maryland vs. "6 Baltimore PD oficers"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/12-207.htm

OCTOBER TERM, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MARYLAND v. KING
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 12–207. Argued February 26, 2013—Decided June 3, 2013

In the meantime you all figure out what you're gonna call the case when a another prosecutor (special prosecutor?) takes it over while Little Prosecutor sits on the bench.....and then you all can decide if "she" doesn't get a conviction, since you all say it is "her case" ... will the next State's Attorney of the City of Baltimore who replaces her be able to file his or her "own charges" against the 6 pd officers and prosecute them .... since it is "her case" and therefore wouldn't be barred by double jeopardy!!! Whereas if it were the State's case it would be. Originally Posted by LexusLover

By your standards, even the legal reporter for the NY Times gets it wrong when they call it the Freddy Gray Case..........and when everyone was calling it the Kenneth Starr case (against Clinton), they were all wrong.

Me thinks you are operating in your own world of reality.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us...ture.html?_r=0 Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He's always in his own world. Why do you think he so rarely makes sense. He's trying to get the officers off on a technicality with the knife possibly being illegal. Like that negates anything that came afterwards. Let's say the knife was illegal and the arrest was called for. Was the death of the young man called for?

He came on, called me a stupid liar and then proceeds to just flat out lie about the Rodney King case. If you're going to lie, don't make it about something that can be easily proven wrong. Speaking of his own world and conjecture; he wants to prosecute a female CHP officer who never cuffed the guy and ceded tactical control to a superior officer. He's nuts.

Everything you post is ..

...complete conjecture and opinion on your part, AND You have no way of knowing ANY OF IT.

Which is why you ...

.... are STUPID.

Explain to me? You can't even explain why you keep showing how ...

... STUPID YOU ARE.


And identify who THEY ARE BY NAME!!!!! Or are you too STUPID to do that?

Quit acting like a snotty little whiny baby. Answer the fucking question. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LLMoron calm down! I know your ass is being ripped in half but please! Control your meltdown.

If the arrest is lawful, what charges will they face? So as long as the arrest is lawful, the police officers can beat the shit out of you and it's ok? A man died in custody and you've got your goddamn panties in a twist over whether the arrest was lawful. Talk about missing the forest for the trees. It doesn't matter whether it was lawful or not. Someone has to take responsibility for the death of a person in custody. (right, the driver of the van and those who put him there unlawfully)

I don't take orders from you, dipshit. You know who they are. Originally Posted by WombRaider

It matters greatly to the arresting officers who did not transport the prisoner, but arrested him and turned him over to other lawful authorities who then became the responsible parties. The arresting officers set everything in motion - if the arrest was unlawful, they are in trouble. If it wasn't, they haven't done anything wrong, and shouldn't have their lives ruined by an overzealous prosecutor looking for glory anymore than Mr. Gray shouldn't have been killed by the black cop driving the van. Her rush to judgement is making her look like a ridiculously unqualified political hack with idiots working for her.

You want to make it simple to fit your narrative but the law is there to protect the rights of the accused, including police officers who have an increasingly complicated job to do in this multicultural la-la land we live in these days.

It matters greatly to the arresting officers who did not transport the prisoner, but arrested him and turned him over to other lawful authorities who then became the responsible parties. The arresting officers set everything in motion - if the arrest was unlawful, they are in trouble. If it wasn't, they haven't done anything wrong, and shouldn't have their lives ruined by an overzealous prosecutor looking for glory anymore than Mr. Gray shouldn't have been killed by the black cop driving the van. Her rush to judgement is making her look like a ridiculously unqualified political hack with idiots working for her.

You want to make it simple to fit your narrative but the law is there to protect the rights of the accused, including police officers who have an increasingly complicated job to do in this multicultural la-la land we live in these days. Originally Posted by DSK

I don't want to make it anything. I simply want the truth. Whatever that is. If the arrest was lawful, they won't be in trouble. If it was, they should be partly responsible. You say I am a racist, then you make a comment like your last sentence. Fucking hypocrite.

I don't want to make it anything. I simply want the truth. Whatever that is. If the arrest was lawful, they won't be in trouble. If it was, they should be partly responsible. You say I am a racist, then you make a comment like your last sentence. Fucking hypocrite. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I stand behind my statement that you are a racist.