Violent Protests in Baltimore

[Tiger Devil Dog]

These types of investigations move much slower than the 24 hour news cycle or social media. If the police haven't interviewed him yet it's because he is the prime suspect in a possible crime. Interviewing him would tip their hand.

You've been watching too much Criminal Minds and Law & Order. Tip their hands to what? There's not an "unsub" committing murders that they have to find from a collection of suspects. There's no mystery of the parties involved here.

An incident report from ALL the officers involved in the situation should have been the first step taken, but since that doesn't give everyone time to get their ducks in a row and formulate a cohesive story to cover their asses and throw out negative stories about the victim in the press, we're now almost three weeks in without his statement being given.

I'm not aware of whether or not an incident report was filed. I assume there was but I don't know. In any case if they were going to get there ducks in a row before submitting that report. The investigating officers almost always save the prime suspect for last. They want as much ammunition as possible before the interview, assuming that the investigating officers aren't actively involved in a cover up, which I doubt because of the intense scrutiny the department is under. The driver also undoubtedly has a lawyer that may very well be advising him not to speak. If true, that in and of itself speaks volumes.

Rest assured that no matter what BPD comes ups with that Maryland State police and the Justice department will be conducting their own investigations. The truth WILL eventually come out. Hopefully before the entire city is burnt to the gruond.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Or the driver could be questioned about the Baltimore police tradition of giving people in their custody "rough rides" in the van that have resulted in serious injury and death before. See how he reacts to the question under scrutiny.

Or just get his story while it's still fresh in his mind and not polluted by three weeks of press coverage and police obfuscation and already unreliable memories. You know, like how police would conduct an investigation with a normal person?

Not going to happen.

Yes, thank you. That's why there's a difference between discussing what should happen and what does happen.

 

[Captrek]

What federal charges would apply here?

Federal civil rights charges such as Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or less likely Conspiracy Against Rights (if they find evidence of a coordinated plan by officers to injure Freddie Gray in the van). Or Excessive Force and Obstruction of Justice charges. But there's a very high bar that has to be met for federal civil rights charges to result in an indictment against police.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law applies only if it can be established that the victim's color or race was a factor. Conspiracy Against Rights doesn't seem to apply. Obstruction of Justice also doesn't seem to apply, but that's a long chapter and I haven't read the whole thing.

Can you point to a specific statute under which the officers might be charged? http://uscode.house.gov

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What federal charges would apply here?

Federal civil rights charges such as Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or less likely Conspiracy Against Rights (if they find evidence of a coordinated plan by officers to injure Freddie Gray in the van). Or Excessive Force and Obstruction of Justice charges. But there's a very high bar that has to be met for federal civil rights charges to result in an indictment against police.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law applies only if it can be established that the victim's color or race was a factor. Conspiracy Against Rights doesn't seem to apply. Obstruction of Justice also doesn't seem to apply, but that's a long chapter and I haven't read the whole thing.

Under Color of Law has nothing to do with the victim's skin color. Jesus, dude. It means action taken in the course of your duties as a member of law enforcement.

Conspiracy can apply if more than one officer conspired to injure the victim, which if they got together and decided to give him one of those "rough rides" absolutely could apply.

Obstruction would apply if they covered up or falsified evidence.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/07/federal-civil-rights-charges-whats-the-process.html

 

[Captrek]

Federal civil rights charges such as Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, or less likely Conspiracy Against Rights (if they find evidence of a coordinated plan by officers to injure Freddie Gray in the van). Or Excessive Force and Obstruction of Justice charges. But there's a very high bar that has to be met for federal civil rights charges to result in an indictment against police.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law applies only if it can be established that the victim's color or race was a factor. Conspiracy Against Rights doesn't seem to apply. Obstruction of Justice also doesn't seem to apply, but that's a long chapter and I haven't read the whole thing.

Under Color of Law has nothing to do with the victim's skin color. Jesus, dude.

Um:

18 USC 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law
Text contains those laws in effect on April 29, 2015
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 13-CIVIL RIGHTS

§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, [HIGHLIGHT]on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race[/HIGHLIGHT], than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

[BillJ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...ea8-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?hpid=z1

Everyone knows Freddie should've just pulled himself up by his bootstraps, like white people.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Not surprising this is from the WaPo. Even in the 90s, they seem to have had an axe to grind against poor blacks.

Lead poisoning like the crack baby argument is just another excuse to absolve decades of both targeted institutional abuse and apathy.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law applies only if it can be established that the victim's color or race was a factor. Conspiracy Against Rights doesn't seem to apply. Obstruction of Justice also doesn't seem to apply, but that's a long chapter and I haven't read the whole thing.

Under Color of Law has nothing to do with the victim's skin color. Jesus, dude.

Um:

18 USC 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law
Text contains those laws in effect on April 29, 2015
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 13-CIVIL RIGHTS

§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, [HIGHLIGHT]on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race[/HIGHLIGHT], than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

How silly of me. I thought you were caught up in the name, but you're already arguing the merits or lack thereof of charges in a federal investigation that doesn't even exist yet. Please, tell me how you've come to the conclusion that the hypothetical at this point federal civil rights investigation won't find grounds to suggest that there might have been a racial component behind this? I'm not saying there is a racial motive (I think it's a strong possibility, but there's no evidence as of yet), but how can you possibly say that charge does not apply already?

You see, I was answering a question of what possible federal civil rights charges might be brought based on previous cases of this nature, not arguing the merits of an investigation I couldn't possibly know the outcome of yet. That's why I provided several examples of potential charges that could be brought. I cannot possibly see how you can already begin excluding them when there's no evidence from a federal investigation to go on yet.

 

[BillJ]

Not surprising this is from the WaPo. Even in the 90s, they seem to have had an axe to grind against poor blacks.

Lead poisoning like the crack baby argument is just another excuse to absolve decades of both targeted institutional abuse and apathy.

I would think the fact that we refuse to clean up lead paint even though we know the dangers would fall under apathy.

 

[fonzob1]

My 24 hours is up! The current findings of the investigation are below:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death-investigation/index.html

Among the revelations:

• Investigators found that Gray was mortally injured in the van and not during his arrest, a Washington television station reported, citing multiple law enforcement sources.

• Police told reporters they have learned of an additional stop the van made as it was traveling to a police precinct.

• The officer driving the van believes Gray was injured before being put into the vehicle, according to a relative who gave the officer's account to CNN.

• A second prisoner, who was picked up after Gray, told investigators that he thought Gray "was intentionally trying to injure himself, according to The Washington Post.

It's not easy to severe someone's spine while arresting them, so it's more believable to me that the force of a blow to the top of the head during a sudden stop in the van (or something to that effect) would have been the cause of the spinal injury. Especially if he was truly shuffling around in the back of the vehicle while it was in motion. Some things are still unclear to me that I'm curious about though:

Did they have probable cause to search him? "Running from the police" might be suspicious, but it's certainly not a crime in itself.

Is having a switchblade a severe enough crime in Baltimore to justify an arrest? Would they normally just confiscate it?

He was clearly injured when they arrested him. Why and how?

What occurred during the additional stop by the van?


Two things I'm pretty confident about:

1. The police involved in the arrest will not be charged with murder.

2. The looting and damage of property by rioters was not justified (I'm clearly not alone in that belief either).

fonzob1, may I ask what it is you think should be done to take steps so that we can reduce the occurrence of these kinds of situations, with the goal of eliminating them? Or, at least, some first steps? I have been reading your (and all) posts, and I can tell you have very deep and passionate feeling about this terrible issue. Will you please tell me more about what you see as progress towards a solution?

I believe that continuing to video record police activity and gather video evidence is the only thing to do, and it is working. Police know that everything they do is being watched and scrutinized. In fact, a police officer in South Carolina very recently was recorded shooting an unarmed man in the back. That officer was fired and is being charged with murder. If he hadn't been recorded on a cell phone he probably would have not been charged.

My question is, are you saying blacks and whites are both mistreated to the same degree by police who treat American citizens as the enemy?

I positively never made such a statement. However, I do believe it is equally wrong no matter the race of the victim.

 

[BillJ]

A Facebook post from my wife:

Baltimore's history of police brutality has led to the overflow of anger and defeat and desperation we now see on the news. How long can a human being be demoralized and dehumanized before they become the monster they've been accused of always being?

 

[Captrek]

Under Color of Law has nothing to do with the victim's skin color. Jesus, dude.

Um:

18 USC 242: Deprivation of rights under color of law
Text contains those laws in effect on April 29, 2015
From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I-CRIMES
CHAPTER 13-CIVIL RIGHTS

§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, [HIGHLIGHT]on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race[/HIGHLIGHT], than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

How silly of me. I thought you were caught up in the name, but you're already arguing the merits or lack thereof of charges in a federal investigation that doesn't even exist yet. Please, tell me how you've come to the conclusion that the hypothetical at this point federal civil rights investigation won't find grounds to suggest that there might have been a racial component behind this? I'm not saying there is a racial motive (I think it's a strong possibility, but there's no evidence as of yet), but how can you possibly say that charge does not apply already?

You see, I was answering a question of what possible federal civil rights charges might be brought based on previous cases of this nature, not arguing the merits of an investigation I couldn't possibly know the outcome of yet. That's why I provided several examples of potential charges that could be brought. I cannot possibly see how you can already begin excluding them when there's no evidence from a federal investigation to go on yet.

Tiger Devil Dog asked what charges would apply. You listed the names of some laws.

With regard to DORUCOL, I listed the conditions under which it might apply. I didn't offer any conclusion as to whether those conditions are met here. (I do now offer an opinion that such a charge is unlikely. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution.)

With regard to the other laws you listed, I said that I didn't see how they would apply and asked if you could point out how they would. If you would like to answer that question, I'm still interested in your answer. If not, that's okay too.

 

[HIjol]

fonzob1, may I ask what it is you think should be done to take steps so that we can reduce the occurrence of these kinds of situations, with the goal of eliminating them? Or, at least, some first steps? I have been reading your (and all) posts, and I can tell you have very deep and passionate feeling about this terrible issue. Will you please tell me more about what you see as progress towards a solution?

I believe that continuing to video record police activity and gather video evidence is the only thing to do, and it is working. Police know that everything they do is being watched and scrutinized. In fact, a police officer in South Carolina very recently was recorded shooting an unarmed man in the back. That officer was fired and is being charged with murder. If he hadn't been recorded on a cell phone he probably would have not been charged.

Thank you for your answer. Forgive me if I am reading you wrong, but it seems that you are confident that this issue is mostly one- sided, with the Police in the wrong. Do you think this awfulness could have some more dimension to it? Perhaps the Street Trouble was a Two Way Street, if you will? I am not talking about value judgements here, but meaning that maybe the solution could benefit from more perspectives.

 

[fonzob1]

fonzob1, may I ask what it is you think should be done to take steps so that we can reduce the occurrence of these kinds of situations, with the goal of eliminating them? Or, at least, some first steps? I have been reading your (and all) posts, and I can tell you have very deep and passionate feeling about this terrible issue. Will you please tell me more about what you see as progress towards a solution?

I believe that continuing to video record police activity and gather video evidence is the only thing to do, and it is working. Police know that everything they do is being watched and scrutinized. In fact, a police officer in South Carolina very recently was recorded shooting an unarmed man in the back. That officer was fired and is being charged with murder. If he hadn't been recorded on a cell phone he probably would have not been charged.

Thank you for your answer. Forgive me if I am reading you wrong, but it seems that you are confident that this issue is mostly one- sided, with the Police in the wrong. Do you think this awfulness could have some more dimension to it? Perhaps the Street Trouble was a Two Way Street, if you will? I am not talking about value judgements here, but meaning that maybe the solution could benefit from more perspectives.

I am not positive what you mean, but not looting and destruction of private property. I will not buy into that as a justified response. Maybe there are officers in need of therapy, retraining, or to work less overtime. I don't really know. I do believe there are plenty of bad decisions to go around by more than just law enforcement (the riots being a prime example).

 

[HIjol]

^^No, I mean, could there have been other parties and other factors involved? Outside Instigators? Looters that had no investment in a peaceful protest? Deep-seated resentment on the part of the legitimate protesters, whose feelings came to the surface in the heat of the moment? And could there be more than one Agenda? Some want jobs, some need homes, some want a better piece of life, some do not want to work three jobs; in other words, more perspectives that need to be considered to reach a solution? Certainly, the Police have a role, but is there more to it?

 

[fonzob1]

Where frustrations are concerned, of course. It's not the fault of the African shop owner, who lost his business in the riots and has no resources to replace it, that you have frustrations in life though. I don't want to be a broken record.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Grey's death ruled a homicide:
Tweeted photo of the charges

NY Times article

In a news conference, the state’s attorney in Baltimore, Marilyn J. Mosby, described repeated mistreatment of Mr. Gray. Time and again, she said, officers abused him, arresting him without grounds and violating police procedure by putting him in handcuffs and leg restraints in the van without putting a seatbelt on him.

Ms. Mosby also said the officers had repeatedly failed to seek medical attention for Mr. Gray after he was injured. By the time he was removed from the van, she said, “Mr. Gray was no longer breathing at all.”

“We have probable cause to file criminal charges,” Ms. Mosby said.

Ms. Mosby also said that the knife the police say Mr. Gray was carrying had not been a legitimate basis for his arrest. “The knife was not a switchblade, and it is lawful,” she said. She said the officers had “failed to establish probable cause for an arrest.”

One officer, Caesar R. Goodson Jr. was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office. Lt. Brian W. Rice was charged with manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment. Officer William G. Porter and Sgt. Alicia D. White were each charged with manslaughter, assault and misconduct in office. Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller were charged with assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment.

 

[J.T.B.]

I have grown so tired of these discussions over the years, I have stopped engaging, because people's minds are already made up. But despite myself, here I go.

Violent resistance, rebellion, insurrection is hard to justify on an immediate and individual level, because individuals are harmed. It is also a historically predictable human reaction to oppression, victimization and unfair treatment under the law.

We as a US society have, cumulatively and over time, made a decision to maintain an underclass, segregated in economically unequal enclaves, with unequal access to property, education, credit, health care, protection under the law, civil process and so on. Historically, these kinds of underclasses either rebel or are forcibly suppressed.

We have also decided as a society to eliminate most of the formal legal barriers that once openly enforced the inequities of our system. What we didn't do was actually clean up the mess that a century of unequal treatment left behind. Overall, though many don't seem conscious of it, we are going the suppression route.

The way I see it, we can spend a lot of money to help the affected communities and try to fix the wrongs of the past, or we can spend it suppressing those communities. What I hope is that the mass media/information age will continue to break down "us and them" barriers and show everyone that those of a different color, ethnicity, religion, language, education etc. are essentially people just like themselves. And that the availability of video evidence will make people aware of that unjust and oppressive treatment still exists, and how prevalent it is.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Meanwhile police have started making arrests of their own.

The man who filmed the Freddie Gray video has been arrested at gunpoint

 

[fonzob1]

Meanwhile police have started making arrests of their own.

The man who filmed the Freddie Gray video has been arrested at gunpoint

I didn't see a reason for his arrest? We have a constitutional right to film the police, and law enforcement takes an oath to defend the constitution. We are evolving into a police state.