BREAKING in Baltimore: Prosecutor Mosby...ASKED cops to target neighborhood where Grey was arrested!

[dannyboys]

Goes to the trustworthiness, objectivity and vested interests of the DA's office, and, if they have dirty hands as well, then, the Defense can shred the Prosecution's case.

Any port in a storm, and the dumbass may have just served-up Christmas-in-Summertime for the Defense... an extraordinary gift, to be exploited to the hilt.

Perhaps the Voters of Baltimore will remember this, the next time she runs for office - although, after this, the next time she runs, it may be for Dogcatcher - with very uncertain prospects.

Clearly, you have never tried a case from either side. The fact that the police were in a high crime area, even if it were at her request (imagine that, a prosecutor working with police to determine where the crime is occurring so they can put their resources there) is completely irrelevant to any issue at the trial. No Judge would allow a defense attorney to try to make that an issue and no defense attorney would be stupid enough to think it would make a difference. What is relevant at trial is how Freddy Gray died; not how the police happened to be in that neighborhood.

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

God you're a fucking idiot.
The fucking van had a functioning GPS installed. The GPS recorded every movement the van made.
The officer KNEW the van had a GPS for Christ Sake!
A computer model has already been generated PROVING the driver did nothing but ordinary driving. No sharp high speed turns. No sudden braking. No fucking nothing.
The Police Union has hired the best lawyers in the country. When they get finished having the entire case thrown out our little negro fuckwitt simian Pros. is going to find a fucking rock to hide under somewhere in Nevada. There she will be the counter clerk for a oil change business.

So, she will be working next to you?

No. I do not care to be near negros who act like they have just climbed down from a fucking banana tree.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

 

[Kondor3]

Running is not illegal...

Unless you're doing it while disobeying a police order to halt, or to evade or avoid detention or questioning or arrest.

 

[Muhammed]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.....Dumbass.

 

[paddymurphy]

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

 

[Muhammed]

Running is not illegal...

Unless you're doing it while disobeying a police order to halt, or to evade or avoid detention or questioning or arrest.

First of all, you have no legal obligation to obey an unlawful order.

Second, do you have any proof that he disobeyed a lawful order to halt?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Since you ignored this last time.
You do realize lead poisoning weakens bones right?

 

[Muhammed]

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

 

[paddymurphy]

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

No, it is not. A stop is a brief detention that is permitted while the officer investigates. It does not need probable cause. Go comment where you actually know something about the topic.

 

[Muhammed]

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.....Dumbass.

Bullshit. I've ran from them many times.

 

[paddymurphy]

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Since you ignored this last time.
You do realize lead poisoning weakens bones right?

What weakened your intellectual functioning?

 

[paddymurphy]

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.....Dumbass.

Bullshit. I've ran from them many times.

If you do and they catch you but find no evidence of a crime, you should be released.

 

[Muhammed]

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

No, it is not. A stop is a brief detention that is permitted while the officer investigates. It does not need probable cause. Go comment where you actually know something about the topic.

You're just plain fucking wrong. If you are detained against your will then you are technically under arrest. Plain and simple.

Idiots cannot comprehend that fact.

 

[paddymurphy]

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

No, it is not. A stop is a brief detention that is permitted while the officer investigates. It does not need probable cause. Go comment where you actually know something about the topic.

You're just plain fucking wrong. If you are detained against your will then you are technically under arrest. Plain and simple.

Idiots cannot comprehend that fact.

Those idiots must include every fucking judge in the state and federal judiciary because they repeatedly hold otherwise. A Terry stop does not require probable cause. And if you have to ask what a Terry stop is, you have no business commenting on this topic. The Supreme Court wrote in Terry, Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

That brief, investigative detention, is not an arrest and need not be supported by probable cause.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So evading the cops is legal? Next time a cop tries to pull you over go ahead and haul ass and see what happens.

They were not pulling him over, dumbass.

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Since you ignored this last time.
You do realize lead poisoning weakens bones right?

What weakened your intellectual functioning?

Why do liberals refuse to answer questions that conflict with their narrative?

 

[paddymurphy]

Your asinine question does not conflict with the narrative.

 

[paddymurphy]

And you cannot, apparently, read the English language. The italicized part of the comment is from Terry. A brief detention while an officer dispels his reasonable suspicion does not constitute an arrest for which probable cause is required. Go find the Court Opinion that supports your claim that a stop is considered an arrest. If you cannot, then please shut the fuck up and quit displaying your stupidity for all to see.

 

[Muhammed]

re

So whats the difference?
He was in a known drug dealing area and he was a known drug dealer.
If the police tell you to stop and you run? You're fucked.

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

No, it is not. A stop is a brief detention that is permitted while the officer investigates. It does not need probable cause. Go comment where you actually know something about the topic.

You're just plain fucking wrong. If you are detained against your will then you are technically under arrest. Plain and simple.

Idiots cannot comprehend that fact.

Those idiots must include every fucking judge in the state and federal judiciary because they repeatedly hold otherwise. A Terry stop does not require probable cause. And if you have to ask what a Terry stop is, you have no business commenting on this topic. The Supreme Court wrote in Terry, Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

That brief, investigative detention, is not an arrest and need not be supported by probable cause.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with that case. In other words, you as committng a false analogy type of logical fallacy.

Your argument fails, dumbass.

 

[paddymurphy]

re

Running does give them the right to stop and investigate; not arrest. Running from the police is not a crime unless they already have the right to arrest. Here, everything they did up to the point of arresting him was proper. Even the arrest was a close call. His death in the wagon, however, is the problem and where the crime may have been committed.

Forcing somebody to stop IS arresting them.

No, it is not. A stop is a brief detention that is permitted while the officer investigates. It does not need probable cause. Go comment where you actually know something about the topic.

You're just plain fucking wrong. If you are detained against your will then you are technically under arrest. Plain and simple.

Idiots cannot comprehend that fact.

Those idiots must include every fucking judge in the state and federal judiciary because they repeatedly hold otherwise. A Terry stop does not require probable cause. And if you have to ask what a Terry stop is, you have no business commenting on this topic. The Supreme Court wrote in Terry, Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

That brief, investigative detention, is not an arrest and need not be supported by probable cause.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with that case. In other words, you as committng a false analogy type of logical fallacy.

Your argument fails, dumbass.

So, now that you see I am right you deflect. I never said that Terry v. Ohio had anything to do with this case. I was simply trying to correct the false information you were spewing and apparently no recognize as being wrong. The police had the right to pursue and detain Gray. They had reasonable suspicion that he might be engaged in criminal activity so, under Terry, they could conduct a brief detention to either confirm or allay their suspicions. Unless they found evidence of a crime in his possession, they did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest. They found a knife that may or may not have been an illegal weapon, though it seem pretty clear now that it was not. You wanna keep making an ass of yourself commenting on things you do not understand, go right ahead. It is hilarious.