A judge in Baltimore Monday acquitted the highest-ranking officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray, marking the fourth trial that prosecutors failed to win.
 |
| Vowed justice after the death of Freddie Gray |
Generally a prosecutor will look at the facts of the case before determining whether or not to pursue charges. As we are all generally aware, one of the considerations is whether or not the prosecutor believes they have a chance of convincing 12 jurors of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Marilyn Mosby quite obviously never gave this case much thought, demanding almost immediately (and long before any facts were studied) that she would bring charges against the Police Officers.
Of the four cases she has brought so far (two more are still to come) she has exactly zero convictions. There have been three acquittals and one mistrial due to a hung jury. She insists that she will bring the remaining two Officers to trial (knowing the same basic facts have failed three times prior) and that she will also retry the Officer who's case was hung.
This is pure prosecutorial misconduct. Five of the officers in question are suing her for defamation. She made a blatant personal, emotional, and political decision. It was in no manner, shape, or form a professional one.
16 comments:
Why she isn't disbarred for prosecutorial abuse is beyond me.
FROM wiki:
Federal investigations
Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced on May 8, 2015, that the Department of Justice will conduct a review of the current practices of Baltimore Police Department due to a "serious erosion of public trust", in relation to the circumstances of Gray's death. The review took effect immediately, and focused on allegations that Baltimore police officers use excessive force, including deadly force, conduct unlawful searches, seizures or arrests, and engage in discriminatory policing.
As of May 2015, Federal authorities were conducting three probes into Baltimore police, the "pattern of practice" investigation initiated by Lynch, a collaborative review that began in the fall of 2014, and a civil rights probe into the death of Gray.
_____________
Settlement
On September 8, 2015, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced that the city had reached a $6.4 million settlement with Gray's family. Rawlings-Blake said the settlement “should not be interpreted as a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the officers facing trial", but had been negotiated to avoid "costly and protracted litigation that would only make it more difficult for our city to heal".
While the Gray family did receive a settlement from Baltimore, their lawyer Billy Murphy, who had contributed money to both Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby and Mayor Rawlings-Blake, never had to file any paperwork. The city offered a settlement before they were sued.
James , why are you always attacking the Police?
You know there are 10's of thousands of video's and stories of the Police Saving lives of people of all races at great risk to their own lives.
You know that the Police in your town/County would race to your aid to help you without question.
James refused to answer my last question... when I asked what his "assumptions were" regarding the hypothetical of more "videos".
The truth, and we all know it... is that most of us would make the assumption that more video would continue to show Police acting professional and doing their profession a service.
There are over fourteen million interactions between police and suspects each year and over the past year or so, there have been 10 shootings that require discipline. Roughly one out of 1.4 million is pretty good odds.
But others (like James) who are more prone to be swayed by what othesr tell them ... would simply make the assumption that more video would expose more bad cops.
Reality is that there is no evidence that there are bad cops that get away with things, due to a lack of video surveillance. It's a conscious or possibly unconscious decision for someone like James to "ASSUME" as much. Due to his feelings about the cops.
It's a form of bigotry. The hypocrisy is that they use bigotry as a means to claim others are bigots (with the only proof being their own bigoted assumption).
The greatest thing, that in order to prove us correct. James will bring up some example of something a cop did wrong as somehow prove that he is not bigoted, when in fact, it proves he is.
He left, having been again bested by you.
For nearly 8 years this President has attacked and attacked LEO in the USA, pitted blacks against whites, cops against communities.
Hillary has promised four more years of lock step Socialism and hate for the law and those that enforce it.
She was at the NAACP a racist group, and on cue and with the old unlikable shrill she painted the bullseye target on the backs of all police officers.
I would ask, does she have any shame, but I know that answer.
CH SAYS: James refused to answer my last question... when I asked what his "assumptions were" regarding the hypothetical of more "videos".
_______________________
JAMES SAY: More videos surely WOULD show most officers performing their duties well, as I said.
HOWEVER, I know what happens in most cases where there is NO video evidence as to what really happened. The incident is ruled in favor of the police, almost every time.
I am for police being required to video record ALL arrests. That could help both the police when they are preforming their duties well, and the suspects when they are not.
It would prevent much wrong action before it could happen by exposing both police and suspect perpetrators.
How many of those "10 shootings that required discipline" involved video recordings, or numerous unassailable witnesses?
How many other shootings would have been seen to have been unjustified if videos existed of them all?
More videos would indeed expose (some) more bad cops.
____________
CH SAYS: Reality is that there is no evidence that there are bad cops that get away with things, due to a lack of video surveillance. It's a conscious or possibly unconscious decision for someone like James to "ASSUME" as much. Due to his feelings about the cops.
It's a form of bigotry. The hypocrisy is that they use bigotry as a means to claim others are bigots (with the only proof being their own bigoted assumption).
The greatest thing, that in order to prove us correct. James will bring up some example of something a cop did wrong as somehow prove that he is not bigoted, when in fact, it proves he is.
__________
JAMES SAYS: Well Ch, I personally know of a case where a drowned black man was pulled out of a creek with chains wrapped all around him and it was ruled "suicide." If a video tape had existed of what he looked like when recovered, it would have been far more difficult for the police involved in that case to make THAT ruling stick!
Another Moslem goes SJS (sudden jihadi syndrome)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/18/german-train-axe-attack-many-injured/
Islam is antithetical to free and liberal institutions
HOWEVER, I know what happens in most cases where there is NO video evidence as to what really happened. The incident is ruled in favor of the police, almost every time.
Actually James... how is that any different than anyone in the United States being accused of something? A cannot convict someone or find them guilty of wrong doing without evidence.
Why would you feel like the police are being treated special?
Or do you really believe that the Police (who risk their lives everyday) should be guilty until proven innocent?
So something bad possibly happened to a black man.
James naturally "assumes" racist cops without a shred of evidence. I rest my case.
He's not smart enough to get that!
CH SAYS:
So something bad possibly happened to a black man.
James naturally "assumes" racist cops without a shred of evidence. I rest my case.
______________
JAMES SAYS:
Ch, I talked to someone who was ACTUALLY THERE when the drowned man was pulled from the water. He found it unbelievable that the death could be declared a "suicide."
That is just one part of my case that I rest.
I know you do not like this, Ch, for it doesn't fit your political agenda, but the simple fact is that in this nation in far too numerous cases no charge would ever have been brought against a particular police officer who used undue lethal force against a black person --- no charge would ever have been brought against that officer's version of what happened, but for the existence of overwhelmingly convincing video evidence.
Some police forces have been caught in out and out lying by such evidence. Example: In the case of the long delayed tape that was finally released by the Chicago police. The suspect had in no way "lunged" at the police, as claimed.
James.
We simply agree to disagree. I think Law Enforcement are the good guys and the criminals are the bad guys. You can continue to believe it's the other way around all you want.
It's just more proof of your bias against Law Enforcement in general.
Why no, Ch. I believe law enforcers are the good guys -- MOST of the time.
That's why I find it so disturbing to see a "peace" officer shooting a fleeing black man in the back multiple times.
And I really find it strange that you seem incapable of understanding why -- after seeing numerous repetitions of such videos -- our black citizenry tend to get upset.
More to the point, James...
I grew up in a medium sized town. My dad was an accountant for the State of Minnesota (and a sergeant in the Army reserves) and my mom was a secretary at a hospital. I was not raised Democrat or Republican (although my dad was more the former and my mother more the latter)...
But I was taught to respect and treat with respect law enforcement. I was taught that they were out to protect us and that they were the good guys. I wasn't taught this to fit a political agenda. The concept that the police would become a political wedge issue never crossed anyone's minds.
So there is one of us who has held a consistent belief and held a consistent respect for law enforcement since we were children.
The other is blatantly attacking police and law enforcement to fit in with their political agenda. You can't really be a Democrat these days without at least considering the fact that Law Enforcement is a racist entity. The President over and over and over has suggested as much.
James - if a cop breaks the law (and there are cops who break laws). They should be punished, if need by with a conviction and jail time.
I might argue that there are cops who might be "on the take" or other cops who might skirt other laws. I don't hear anyone holding the entire Law Enforcement community responsible for the behavior of a few rogues.
Why, with no more evidence, do you insist on making this out to be an issue with Law Enforcement in general...
of course such thinking helps justify those who simply kill cops randomly, because they are told (by the President and everyone on the left) that cops in general are racist and prone to acting as such.
Post a Comment