Posted on 05/05/2015 4:19:18 PM PDT by navysealdad
A Baltimore police officer charged over the death of Freddie Gray has attempted to compel the Baltimore state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby to produce the knife Gray was arrested for carrying, contending that it was an illegal weapon and as such Gray’s arrest was justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
“Who listed the charges, and deemed there is probable cause.”
I remember the Zimmerman case where the prosecutor listed the charges and deemed there was probable cause.
Definitely, and it's probably pretty frustrating for cops to keep busting people just to have them re-released every time.
Every time we have one of these situations, it seems that the "victim's" records are always full of all sorts of crimes/convictions, and yet they are still out on the street. This doesn't really fit with the narrative about how blacks are tossed into prison for every little thing. It seems to take one heck of a lot to actually get some serious prison time.
In my jurisdiction, knives, dirks, tire irons all fell under the “Long Gun ordnance.” Remember these laws are usually written by legislators with assistance from the City Law Department without consideration for the actual enforcement of the law.
I agree, the chain of custody is going to be huge. If the defense can show a break in the chain, the prosecutor can change her name to Marcia Clark.
The first test will be the motion on the knife. If the defense prevails, say goodbye to the false imprisonment charges, the malfeasance in office, and anything else related to “probable cause”. If I remember correctly, the prosecutor never mentioned anything about the knife being planted. While she could present this theory at trial, she cannot use it in the motion hearing as in this case the knife is technically the defendant. The motion is to see if the knife was illegal under the MUNICIPAL Code.
I think the prosecutor has a real problem on her hands as the statute is so loosely written. All the knife need is ANY kind of spring assist and she’ll have to start dismissing some of the misdemeanor charges.
I am curious as hell as to the make mark mod of the knife! (As a knife guy.)
We are all set for a long hot summer, aka 1968. I think the mostly white “relocated” jury from Simi-Hunt Valley will acquit in August on the hottest day of the year with the O’s on a ten game losing streak. Probably a week or a month after another Trayvon Ferguson.
Katy bar the door.
And you are absolutely correct!
I was at the O’s game on Sunday between riots. Whipped the Red Sox about 18-6.
If the knife had a thumb stud, thumb plate or bird’s eye opening on the blade, it is illegal under Baltimore City Law.
Usagi, thank you for your thought out response. The following is only looking at the Lt.’s and bike cops charges against them.
None of the arresting officers were in the van at any time of the transport. It was operated by one man.
What probable cause is there to charge the 3 arresting officers with anything? The stop and arrest are going to be proven legal, she is supposed to know this. I don’t think she is covered by acting in good faith because unlike the police, she is THE lawyer and is the final say so in charging.
The man they arrested ended up dying in another officers custody. The man was alive in the prisoner van when the arresting officers left.
How did she come up with assault, unlawful arrest and whatever else she charged these 3 with? Is not securing someone in a seat-belt an arrest able offense? What law is that under? If they violated department guidelines, isn’t that a civil rights matter?
How can she prove these officers knew that by not securing him in the van, (it may be the wagon mans job) it would probably lead to his death or serious injury. If that van was in an accident and the offender died, would they be charged criminally for not securing him, of course not. How is this any different? (I’m not saying any other officers did anything wrong, I only have the video and the complaint filled out by these 3 PO’s
The SA is only supposed to charge people with things you can prove, anything else violates her oath.
The only probable cause she stated in her big politician speech moment (dealing with the arresting officers) was the knife was legal. If it’s proven to be illegal, isn’t she committing the same crime she accused the officers of?
I also believe that because she personally charged these 3 officers, she forfeited the right to immunity at a civil trial, and she can and will be sued by these 3 officers.
Her actions seem sloppy, possibly unethical, and deserved to be scrutinized. How could someone as smart as her, make such a glaring error in the biggest case of her life?
I think it’s because she is corrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.