Andrew Branca on the charges in the Freddie Gray case
Andrew Branca is a lawyer I highly respect who writes at the blog Legal Insurrection (full disclosure: I write there at times, too). He did yeoman’s service in blogging about the Zimmerman and Ferguson cases, as well as many others, and he’s always worth reading.
Here’s his take on the sparse evidence offered so far to support the charges in the Freddie Gray case.
[ADDENDUM:Branca has another fine post here. The topic this time is the legality or illegality of Freddie Gray’s knife and therefore of his arrest. The prosecutor has asserted that the knife was legal in Maryland, but Branca argues that it may have been illegal in the city of Baltimore, which has its own municipal laws (as New York City does, which I mentioned previously here).
What’s more, police are not required to ascertain for certain that a crime has occurred when they arrest someone. It’s enough that they have a reasonable suspicion that it has:
In the Gray instance, the arresting officer may in fact have been mistaken about whether a spring-assisted knife falls within the statutory prohibition on possession of a switchblade, or on whether Gray’s possession of the knife while (presumably) on probation was an offense subject to arrest.
But unless he actually knew or reasonably should have known either of those possibilities to be the case, legally-speaking probable cause for the arrest existed, and the arrest itself was not a crime.
Again, if the officer were mistaken the arrest may be defective for purposes of further prosecution. But this does not mean that an officer is limited to making an arrest only in circumstances where criminal conduct is a legal and moral certainty.
A society in which this were required, or permitted would be, I expect, a society that most Americans would find an unpleasant place to live.
Thus, even if it turns out that the knife was legal and that Freddie Gray were legally permitted to possess the knife under the circumstances, if the police officer reasonably believed that either of these were offenses subject to arrest, and neither knew or should have known that this belief was incorrect at the time of the arrest, then there existed probable cause for the arrest, and the arrest itself is entirely lawful from the context of that officer’s conduct.
That is the law as I understand it, as well.
See also this.]
What we have here is pure and simple corrupt demagoguery in its basest form. Look at the Mosbys. What they say, what they do, who they are.
I wouldn’t let them wash my car. They’d steal the ArmorAll. But in black racist Baltimore they are at the top of the pecking order.
The Mayor of Baltimore herself, said something along the lines of “we will find justice for Freddie Gray”. So very clear that she was playing politics.
It has come down to this (and has been in quite a few cases) – the cops are now the sacrificial lamb on the alter of political correctness.
Off topic; but, I think still related – there was a news article in AM New York (a free paper in NYC) about subway toll cheat arrests being way down compared to last year. It didn’t mention why except it did seem to imply that there were less people jumping turnstiles.
It just didn’t dawn on the “journalist” that wrote that article (nor their “editors”) that the number of arrests being down doesn’t mean the crime is less – it could very well be because most cops aren’t going to stick their necks out for a minor crime that could very well go bad for them as police officers and not only ruin their career; but cost them the lives or their freedom.
This is bad. Let’s hope that the jury is filled with honest, very brave men and women, who take their responsibility more seriously than the elected officials of Baltimore.
“former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s heavy-handed charging of the police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray was a “sad day for justice” and “motivated by crowd control”
“There is no plausible, hypothetical, conceivable case for murder under the facts as we now know them. You might say conceivably, there is a case for manslaughter,” he continued
He added, “My prediction–they have overplayed their hand. It is unlikely they’ll get any convictions in this case as a result of this and if they do there is a good possibility they will get reversed on appeal.”
The least vulnerable aspect of this mysterious case is whether the police owed a duty to Gray. Failure to render an obligated duty usually is a very murky factual situation. That does not appear to be true in this case.
Branca: “In terms of Goodson providing medical aid to Gray himself, was Goodson appropriately trained and skilled to do so? Was providing such aid a normal part of his job? Was he an EMT? For a rather major point of condemnation of Goodson, Mosby seems to provide little evidence that Goodson had either a legal duty or the necessary skill and training to personally provide Gray with medical care.”
Ridiculous. A police officer transporting a prisoner with a medical condition apparently requiring immediate attention is obligated to get that attention. Go to a hospital. Why not?
Branca: “Mosby states that Gray told the officers he could not breath, but of course if he was speaking he was necessarily breathing.”
Ridiculous. Someone who says he cannot breath is indicating severe physical and potentially life-threatening distress. It may be fake or malingering, but not a reason for ignoring the medical assessment of a doctor.
Branca: “Is every police officer who had any contact with Gray at all during that transport guilty of criminal malfeasance?” We don’t know. It will be interesting to see how many of those officers, as so often happens, were looking into some distant horizon and were oblivious of what was going on because their attention was elsewhere.
Branca: “Mosby goes on to characterize as ‘grossly negligent’ Goodson’s accepting a radio assignment to pick up another suspect in the van, in light of Gray’s obvious and recognized need for assistance.
Hindsight, of course, is 20:20. But all indications are that Gray was largely functional when he first entered the van, and grew progressively worse during the 30 minute or so ride.”
Ridiculous. We do not know what the eventual facts will show. They may very well exonerate the police – – I suspect they will – – but the acceptance of another assignment when a prisoner in custody needs medical attention, implicates criminal liability. “Largely functional”? What does that mean, legally? Think which direction that works.
There are several other absurdities in Branca’s analysis.
It is way too soon to render such a dismissive analysis, one flawed on its face.
And Dershowitz is most likely right when he says there is no case for murder.
But allowing someone to die when there is an obligation and opportunity to help is in fact depraved murder if the mind was depraved.
It is wise to step back. The politics and the inept politicians cloud every thing.
In a wider perspective, the law and order perspective (the right perspective) ought not to obscure the perspective that certain groups of human beings may have developed an arrogance and disdain in our time.
Tonawanda:
I think you misunderstood Branca’s point.
He was saying that people were saying that the van driver had a duty to either get medical help if needed or to render it himself. The paragraph you quoted was in response to the idea that the van driver should have offered medical aid himself.
Branca had written [emphasis mine]:
So, Goodson (the van driver) certainly could not be expected, unless trained as an EMT himself, to physically render medical aid by himself. He could be expected to call for help, and did, and then:
How well-trained are police in knowing when a prisoner is at risk in the medical sense? What was Gray’s actual condition at that point? He was apparently talking, and could breathe, but he was complaining that he wasn’t well. However, that’s apparently very common among prisoners, and I’m not sure that van drivers have any special skills at knowing when a prisoner is really ill and when he/she is feigning. We’d have to have a lot more facts to know that Goodson knew or should have known that Gray was in poor health at that point. As Branca writes:
Branca’s analysis is not dismissive. He is agreeing that we don’t have enough facts, and he thinks the charges were premature and unsupported by the facts given by the prosecutor. That doesn’t mean others couldn’t emerge. But what was the rush? Calming down the angry crowd, not finding the facts.
I took another look at Branca.
Goodson was a police officer, it seems, not merely a “van driver.” Gray told Goodson “I cannot breath.” Branca dismisses this by saying Gray had “necessarily” to be breathing because he said he could not breath. Apparently Branca has never been tackled hard in football or had asthma when he gasped “I can’t breath”.
Usually the other football players or the asthma witnesses don’t say: “Ha ha. You just spoke!”
And if the “I can’t breath” person continues to show sufficient distress the football players or asthma witnesses don’t call more football players or more witnesses to get a second opinion about the obvious. They seek medical attention. Another observation of Gray by another officer strikes me as possible temporizing.
Yes, true, the low lifes of society do fake, they are contemptible, they seek to gain infantile attention and ill gotten rewards. Sometimes they can’t breath. As much as anyone else, I resent paying for this. But the payment mostly goes to police officers to deal with it despite the fakery and the criminality.
Branca goes on to dwell on the “nor did he render” part. I am guessing that the did not render part was intended as a loop hole closer to the did not seek part. Calling another police officer for a medical evaluation instead of seeking a medical evaluation from a doctor was – – I am guessing – – the primary point. Goodson’s lack of medical ability was the subsidiary point, making clear there was no reasonable alternative explanation.
This Branca quote has zero to do with the lack of facts. It is the opposite. It is a rhetorical call for ignoring the facts. The very lack of facts concerning when “Gray was found to be unresponsive” counsel silence, not argumentation.
I want to be forthright about my concerns.
I despise the racial animosity fomented by the Left, by BO, by the Democrat party, and by the charlatans of racial hatred in general.
I despise the unfair, soviet propagandistic exploitation of necessary and justified law enforcement by those same fomenters of chaos and racial strife.
And I despise the arrogance and loss of civil respect by those in law enforcement, on all levels, who make the soviet propaganda possible.
Sounds like you despise about everything Tonawanda
I just wonder what perfect hindsight is involved in claiming that a van driver should divert and seek medical attention every time a prisoner demands it? I suspect that van drivers, and cops in general, have heard similar stories many times. I was actually in hospital the past couple of days, and paid little attention to the details of the charges. I wonder how six police officers became enmeshed in criminal action?
Lots of questions to be answered.
An interesting possible scenario comes to mind if he police unions believe the charges are trumped up. How would the Democrat controlled city government in Baltimore , which by definition is pro-union down the line, if the Baltimore police union staged a walk out, or sick out in protest? How about if unionized departments in Democrat controlled cities around the country participated in sympathy actions?
Obama would try to nationalize the police force of course. Would the American people tolerate that?
Related to questions to be answered; there is no doubt about a couple of answers in my mind. This kicks the can down the road by, temporarily at least, satisfying the blood lust against the cops. If convictions do not result, all hell will break loose, and it will be worse than ever.
charles Says:
May 1st, 2015 at 9:56 pm
Reported subway turnstile crime is way down.
And the answer is:
The NYC transit cops are blasé per Blasio.
Don’t cha know?
Shocking remarks from Balts mayor, she threw her
police dept under the bus !!!
Re: someone saying “I cannot breathe”
I can tell you that as a medical person *YOU take that claim VERY SERIOUSLY*
If a person comes in for emergency services & says
THAT you better act pretty damn fast.
Sometimes just putting oxygen on them will buy you some time but IT needs to be addressed pronto.
It can point to the patient having a collapsed lung,
heart attack, heart failure, pulmonary edema (lungs flooded with fluid), trachea or bronchial spasm,
(essentially shutting off of the airway), aspiration of
some foreign object into the lungs.
So the silly remark that “You can breathe because you are talking” is absurd. When you here someone in a compromising situation say
“I cannot breathe” you roll the dice on your response because “I cannot breathe” may well be the VERY LAST REMARK the person ever makes !
I have seen it with my very own eyes & it s not pleasant.
opps, here = hear LOL
forgot to include *onset of paralysis* (from his spinal injury) as a *cause* of “I cannot breathe”.
“This is bad. Let’s hope that the jury is filled with honest, very brave men and women, who take their responsibility more seriously than the elected officials of Baltimore.”
Your comment made me smile at your hopefulness and naivete 🙂
You look at the armpit city of Baltimore and expect justice.
Now I agree something seems to be out of whack with this case.
1) This moron DA’s husband was on the radio saying that all of Baltimore’s problems are due to Reaganomics.
2) The lawyer for the Gray family contributed the maximum to her election and was on her transition team. So she is unbiased.
3) The mayor of Baltimore felt a need to give the rioters space to destroy things since it is only property.
Most of Baltimore has already made up its mind, the only way for these men/woman to get a fair trial is to change the venue. And if the venue is changed to DC, same outcome.
If I was a cop in Baltimore, I would simply put in my time and not put myself at risk. If I was CVS, I would not rebuild the pharmacy. It is time to get some reality into how these “citizens” of Baltimore view the world.
MollyNH: “I can tell you that as a medical person *YOU take that claim VERY SERIOUSLY*”
Consider this MollyNH- You have the training and expertise to take something someone says seriously in the ER. You are also in a safe environment where when people come to the ER they are looking for help. Slightly different in this case!
The driver of the van- College educated? probably not. Medical training? Doubtful Working environment- somewhat more dangerous than your working environment.
So thank you for comparing apples and oranges.
You see, I don’t know what the facts of the case are. At first I thought the injury occurred during the arrest since he was not walking on his own. Then I read a report that he was simply going limp to make it harder for the cops and another camera shot showed him climbing into the van. Then I heard that the one prisoner said that he was thrashing around and throwing himself against the walls of the van. Then later he retracted that statement and said he feared for his life. So which is it? And then apparently at some point Gray said he could not breath. Now to this peon’s mind if I was the driver, the question comes up- is it real or is it just another case of jacking me around?
The driver made the wrong choice in this case. But tell me oh wise one on high- Do you think any of these officers started out with the intent to do Gray harm? And then ask yourself if the same can be said of the mayor, DA and other lowlifes that have hopped on the band wagon to convict the cops? And consider this- which group is more base and evil? I vote for the latter since they are doing it with intent.
Just something to think about if you choose to.
Interesting discussion about the language. Technically, if someone says they “can not breath” their remark is incorrect since they have to breath to talk. Idiomatic phrases like that are why people who are not proficient with the English language have so much difficulty learning the language. Any native English speaker should understand what the victim who is having trouble breathing means.
Although it is up to the jury to stop this travesty, the possibility that the police will be wrongly convicted is very high. It would take an extremely brave jury to buck the pressure put on them by the mob and to vote their consciences even if they knew they would be threatened themselves and that more people would possibly be killed if they find the policemen and women innocent of the more serious charges.
In addition we now have double jeopardy where the person found innocent once will be retried and convicted on federal charges. We have president George Bush to thank for that one in the Rodney King case in California. Bush claimed he was a conservative but he acted like a demagogue then and set the precedent which the feds have followed ever since.
The Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government. The system was designed to protect the state from the individual, rather than to protect the individual from the state. Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies.
Marxism/Leninism viewed law as a superstructure in the base and superstructure model of society. “Capitalist” law was a tool of “bourgeois domination and a reflection of bourgeois values.” Since law was a tool “to maintain class domination”, in a classless society, law would inevitably disappear.
[The left is following this script to the exact points… so if you dont ‘get’ it, its probably because you have no idea of how other systems are, or their behavior or purposes. if it wasnt in a movie, you didnt pick it up by osmosis, so you have no idea how to identify and understand what your seeing as your not seeing what you know, and what you ARE seeing is confusing because you dont understand the basis for the behaviors, actions and choices. but they are dictated by a system which if you DID know about, what was happening would be clear to you. but if you dont, you may feel like denying what experience tells you in favor of what your imagination wants]
In 1917, the Soviet authorities formally repealed all Tsarist legislation and established a socialist legal system. This system abolished Western legal concepts including the rule of law, the civil liberties, the protection of law and guarantees of property. Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state.
[These are the premises in which you believe law runs on in the US and so when they do things from an alternative system, yrou confused, as your asking where did these things go that are the basis. while your busy trying to grasp it, time is passing and its being established throwing down deep roots till you cant pull the weed out and remove it]
Soviet legal scholars even asserted that “criminal repression” may be applied in the absence of guilt.” Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka explained:
Do not ask for evidence, do not care about that, but only care about which class the people belong to. the ‘victim’ was determined by class, and the ‘criminals’ are the class of people the state wishes to change, control, eliminate, etc.
NOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?
The purpose of public trials was “not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities – but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry. Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client’s guilt for granted…”
this is a “Fundemental Change” from the concept of CAPITALIST LAW and they are applying SOVIET concepts of LAW which fuels discord, riots, and the implementation of RED TERROR as the people realize that criminality is no reason for prosecution, and innocence is no defense.
Show me the man and I will show you the crime – Beria
In Soviet law, rights were granted by the state and thus were subordinate to the state. Rights were commitments by the state to enact laws that would secure benefits for the citizens. However, if the state failed to do so, citizens had no legal remedy. Soviet law emphasized economic and social rights over civil and political rights.
Knowing makes all the difference to understanding that inventing reasons does not afford… – artfldgr
Conflict of interest, whether in appearance or in actuality, is never a problem with the Dems. Just look at Skankles.
Mike I posit that they need medically trained people if they are just picking people up off the street as they did in this case since they say he was illegally arrested. Maybe just a *course* in first aide !
Sure I described an obvious medical scenario & I did preface my remarks by saying *person presenting to emergency services* BUT officers in the field need to be aware THAT some of those people out there are
a step away from needing an ER ! Do they have an idea what they will encounter out there? I doubt it.
People who die from drug over doses experience Pulmonary edema, their lungs fill with fluid essentially drowning them because the drug has so suppressed their breathing & heart rate that fluid that is normally cleared from the lungs stays behind & accumulates. Judging by the custody deaths like
Gray, the one in NY & one I read about in LA these
officers are totally oblivious to what they may encounter on the street. Sure I saw these things in a medical setting but they *have their beginning*
out in the actual world, people are stricken in the world at large so, no I am not comparing apples & oranges.
Charles Says: It just didn’t dawn on the “journalist” that wrote that article (nor their “editors”) that the number of arrests being down doesn’t mean the crime is less
Red Touch Yellow / Red Touch Black
its a wonderful concept to understand that the experience in recognizing can never come from introspection, or inference, or fantasy, or any way that we fill in blanks or try to understnad things. over and over i say the same thing, look to one country that these people idolize for the answer.
if one does not do that, one invents a whole new category, lexicon, and the process of understanding within that. you fork the concepts into a new restart of the old, rather than learn and start placing items in their proper place WITH CONCORDANCE AND GIVING EXTENSION.
you see… if you have never seen a coral snake or its similar colored cousin, you would not know the ryme that could save your life there, and you would never call them by the same name as the prior people who have seen them. you would also deny yourself all the experience, trials, effectiveness, and learn about what failed in the prior history, as this is new.
its not new.. everything you guys wonder about not only has existed before, but there is terminology, colleges and all manner of institutes of training and examination that has delved into them like a person with obsessive compulsive navel gazing would do.
you want to understand the change to the police – read about soviet courts… if you want to know why we either have amorphous crap for art, or what looks like soviet realism, look to soviet art and goals. want to know why the leaders are picking certain items to nationalize or control first, look to soviet history with an eye towards changes when the past failed, and copies when the past worked.
Under the idea of Communication Theory is a bunch of stuff that covers what people are bitching about with the newspapers, and such. they somtimes tie it to some copy of something hitler and other despots, but they dont recognize the form.
what i cant get across is that these guys have done for this stuff what kung fu martial arts has done to common brawls!!!!
think of the difference between someone trained in a comprehensive martial art, and a plain old person who has no such and how they fight and how it turns out.
“Soviet Media Theory”
<blockquote the Soviet Union was restructured with new political system based on the Marxist-Leninist principles. The newly formed communist party by Lenin shows much interest in the media which serves to the working class in the country and their welfares. So the Soviet originates a theory from Marxist, Leninist and Stalinist thoughts, with mixture of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ideology is called “Soviet Media Theory”
The same theory was developed and followed by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy.
that last part is why i said we recognize things from hitler, we are allowed to discuss hitler, but we know little about real soviet stuff, because we dont teach it, study it, learn it. its unfamiliar to us, and as such, we are not able to see whether its Red Touches Yellow, or Red Touches Black.
Its ALIEN…
The four theories of the Press/Media
Authoritarian theory
Libertarian theory
Social responsibility theory
Soviet media theory
only one of them is the concept most in the US believe in. the first is like hitler, the second is like US press, the third is what US press has been behaving like and the last is what you end up with…
Authoritarian theory describe that all forms of communications are under the control of the governing elite or authorities or influential bureaucrats.
The Libertarian theory is one of the “Normative theories of press”. The theory which is originally came from libertarian thoughts from 16th century in Europe. Libertarianism is free from any authority or any control or censorship. The libertarianism is an idea of individualism and limited government which is not harmful to another.
In mid 20th century most of the developing countries and third world nations have used this social responsibility theory of press which is associated with “the Commission of the Freedom of Press” in United States at 1949. In the book “Four theories of Press” (Siebert, Peterson and Schramm) it’s been stated that “pure libertarianism is antiquated, out dated and obsolete.” That paved way for replacement of Libertarian theory with the Social responsibility theory.
To these people most of you are antiquated in assuming and wanting the oldest form of stuff, and just dont want to give up your status quo!!!!!
once you get both sides you get the dialogue your watching
So perhaps instead of funneling more monies into
salaries for patronage jobs that exist in Baltimore they need to upgrade their *paddy wagon brigade*
with officers who have medical knowledge on some level, good lord !
But that will never happen because sadly this is probably an in the *hood* neighborhood.
Nobody really cares about those on the lowest rung.
That being said I would NEVER care to be a police
person, at all ! But most of them are sincere & like the work I am sure but it would burn people out esp in large cities.
For me the key questions are WHEN was his neck broken and WHO did it.
I don’t believe any credible evidence released to the public has answered those questions.
From what I’ve read it is all but impossible to break your neck (as in this case) by simply banging your head against a wall.
Since all six cops were not present from start to finish who did what and when is quite unclear.
Ann Coulter’s book Demonic deals with the mob behavior of the left. Baltimore just needs some guillotines and it would match it’s French roots.
Reminds me of the George Zimmerman case where the prosecutor piled on the charges hoping that the jurors would find him guilty of something at the trial.
MollyH:
“Sure I saw these things in a medical setting but they *have their beginning out in the actual world, people are stricken in the world at large so, no I am not comparing apples & oranges.
Once again you are viewing it behind your rose colored glasses, in my opinion. What someone in an ER setting encounters when someone presents themselves is different than when a non-cooperative person presents themselves in police custody.
To sit back and say since the they are similar since they “have their beginnings out in the real world.” is similar to one saying rape and love making are one in the same since they both entail the same physical actions. I think you will agree with me that is not the case.
You say, they had no cause to arrest him and it was an “illegal arrest”. Again thanks for the 20/20 hindsight evaluation. At the time I’m sure they felt it was a legal arrest or they may have been filling a quota. So do we use their view at the time of the arrest or your 20/20 armchair evaluation?
As for the seat belt rule, that was a law that was passed about a week before this incident happened. So lets hang all 6 of them for not integrating the new rule into their normal procedure. And this procedural failure is worthy of being charged with MurderII?
I would agree with you that there may need to be better training for the drivers of the wagons. But in the end it gets back to being a judgement call by the drivers, “Is this person telling me the truth or are they pulling my chain?”. And I will admit that if I were in that type of a job, I would probably tend to develop a thick skin. Not saying it is right, just saying that is the way it is.
So it is easy for you to pontificate about what they should have done. And you work in a fairly safe environment where people are mostly cooperative. You don’t see the underbelly of society. And Mr. Gray was part of that underbelly. Not to say he deserved to die but I suspect if you were given the choice between living next to any of the 6 officers indited or Mr. Gray, you would opt for the former.
My problem with liberal like you is that you only look at “What was the intent of the person? Never at what are the bottom line results and if it is not working what can be done. We’ve spent 22 trillion on the war on poverty and all you liberals can do is demand more time and money. I’m for trying something else.
Like I said, I’m sorry Mr. Gray died. But then I’m sorry about the 3 people that were shot last night in Baltimore. Or the 7 family members that were killed by CO poisoning a month ago due to them running a generator inside their house. But I’m not looking to hang the electric company because they turned off their power.
When I’m stopped by the police, it is yes, sir, no sir, thank you sir. I don’t care how much of an a$$ I may think the person is, my goal is to have a peaceful encounter. That is why I don’t understand people like the demonstrators or Mr. Gray. When you keep upping the stakes or simply going limp, are you helping or hurting the situation? And speaking of “unlawful detention”. The city turned loose all the thugs they arrested the other night. Were they guilty of a crime or innocent by reason of being politically correct?
I have a different expectation level of a doctor treating a patient and a good Samaritan trying to be helpful even if both happened in the real world. Apples and Oranges. Perhaps if the good Samaritan were a doctor it would be apples and apples. But that would be changing the story.
The police are incompetent on top of being obedient to evil authority. Nothing people can say about that here will change anything.
Mikell and Molly NH:
The arrest may have been legal after all. See addendum here.
I’m amused at the faux shock & awe at(GASP!!) at the news that the back of a paddy wagon is all steel. Ddduuuuuuhhhhhh….!!
Seatbelts..? In the “guest” quarters of paddy wagons..? Boy, have things changed since my last ride in one!! (*Don’t axe me..(-: *)
Oldflyer: “I suspect that van drivers, and cops in general, have heard similar stories many times. I was actually in hospital the past couple of days, and paid little attention to the details of the charges. I wonder how six police officers became enmeshed in criminal action?”
My retired cop friend tells me that the perps often feign injuries and that going limp is SOP when they are being put in a car or paddy wagon. Why? They just want to make the cops’ job more difficult. We would all be surprised at the level of knowledge that these criminals (Yes, Freddie Gray was a criminal with a long rap sheet.) have of ways to make life more difficult for the “Man.” Also, making things difficult during an arrest gives the perp more street creds. These bad boys want to be known as bad ass down in the hood. Yeah, they are humans, but nothing like the humans we know and associate with.
The trials will be a circus. The witnesses and jurors, even the black ones, will receive threats of death or death to their family regularly during the run up to the trial and during the proceedings. How do I know this? My brother was on a jury where the accused was a black hoodlum. He received phone calls at all hours of the night threatening him and his family. The black hoods do not accept the concept of justice as we want it to operate. That’s why it will take very brave and honest jurors to acquit the policemen and policewoman. Not expecting that.
Did anyone notice that the Mayor became much more assured of her stance against the police after Al Sharpton arrived in Baltimore. Who does Al Sharpton advise? Barack Obama, that’s who. From National Review online:
“Not everyone gets to drop in at the presidential residence for a chat with President Barack Obama, but the White House welcome mat most definitely has been out for one frequent visitor – the Rev. Al Sharpton. Since 2009, Sharpton has visited the White House no fewer than 61 times, reports the National Review, citing the White House visitor log, which “illustrates the extraordinary access Sharpton has had to the president and his top advisers.” The fix is in all the way from the W.H.
We are now into Banana Republic territory.
Also, making things difficult during an arrest gives the perp more street creds. These bad boys want to be known as bad ass down in the hood. Yeah, they are humans, but nothing like the humans we know and associate with.
That’s nothing new and it isn’t something cops get to hold over the ignorant masses.
Some of us actually know how to deal with uncooperative passive aggressive cons that know that they will be in lockdown, but at least you’ll take the psychological damage to your family and beat them senseless cause of it.
Such tricks are very transparent. But so is police incompetence and taking their anger out on cons or people under their protection.
We are now into Banana Republic territory.
If people had listened to you, JJ, we would still be here waiting to obey the police because as you claimed, they would “protect us”. Protect us from what, rioters in Baltimore? That never happened. The only one they don’t kill and stomp into the ground are the foot soldiers of their own alliance, the Left.