Police murder child, refuse to allow mother to comfort him

The death was ruled a homicide by the coroner but that doesn't mean murder...manslaughter comes to mind here but I'm no attorney and I didn't stay in a HIE last night.

There is one murder charge - "depraved heart murder 2" against the driver. It is essentially willful indifference manslaughter AFAIK. 3 of the other 5 are being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

All charges going before a judge at the prelim hearing, so they may get reduced. It will be an interesting trial, that's for sure.

Justice may be blind, but nobody else in the country is right now.
 
There is one murder charge - "depraved heart murder 2" against the driver. It is essentially willful indifference manslaughter AFAIK. 3 of the other 5 are being charged with involuntary manslaughter.

All charges going before a judge at the prelim hearing, so they may get reduced. It will be an interesting trial, that's for sure.

Justice may be blind, but nobody else in the country is right now.

the being in custody thing certainly complicates the situation and I'm thinking maybe that's where the murder bit comes in...LE has an obligation to protect those in custody but that obligation is frequently "overlooked"...anyway I'm not so quick to suggest that charges should be reduced in this matter...
 
OK - now we're getting somewhere. "Thug" by itself, refers to a criminal or one that has a proclivity toward criminal behavior without a care for the victim.



Adding "Ghetto" to it, turns it into "Anyone that isn't white," as if the race matters.


Haven't lived in a ghetto then, eh? I have.

Wasn't all black people, but it sure as hell was a ghetto.

Met ghetto thugs of all colors. Tried to avoid getting in their way, actually.

Just looking at them was often getting in their way, considering they didn't want anyone watching their daily illegal activities.
 
That's for 12 of the van driver's peers in one of Baltimore's surrounding areas to decide.

A man was falsely arrested on no grounds, he was healthy when he was loaded into the van, and when he was unloaded he was rushed to Shock Trauma where he died of injuries inflicted by the police.

Sounds like at least probable cause for a court trial to me.

Prove it........

He was dragged limp into that van.. The guy could have just as easily crashed on his bike and partially severed his spine when no cameras were rolling, a minute before the police put him in the paddy wagon....:rolleyes:
 
American Heritage Dictionary shows the commonly used definition when I was younger, by the way.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ghetto

1. A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often because of discrimination.

Note "same race/background/etc" and "often" but not always.

It would appear some dictionaries decided to change the definition over time...
 
American Heritage Dictionary shows the commonly used definition when I was younger, by the way.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ghetto

1. A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often because of discrimination.

Note "same race/background/etc" and "often" but not always.

It would appear some dictionaries decided to change the definition over time...

They are doing the same with the N word, or any other fact that does not fit their agenda..... Just look at the text books kids read nowadays.... Major historical facts get deleted or altered...:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad:....
 
That's the purpose of a trial. As upset as FoP is about their members being charged quickly, they will all get their day in court in a timely manner. Just like anybody else under the Constitution.

Time will tell....

Just like O.J Simpson was found NOT guilty....:mad2::mad2:
 
That's for 12 of the van driver's peers in one of Baltimore's surrounding areas to decide.

In a first step, it will be up to a district court judge to decide whether this charge will stand. Considering how sloppy this charge sheet was put together (wrong names, wrong addresses) and the nature of what is being charged, I wouldn't be suprised if the murder charge goes by the wayside right then (a charge btw. that doesn't exist in MD law, she just stuck a phrase from old common law together with a definition from MD code).

A man was falsely arrested on no grounds,

He was arrested under a local ordinance that outlaws switchblades assisted by a spring. While the states attorney was correct to state that the spring-assisted knife he was carrying was 'legal to own under maryland law', it has been the practice of her own office to charge people for possession of spring-assisted knives under the Baltimore city ordinance. So either the SA is clueless, or she is intentionally misleading if she states that the knife was 'legal under MD law' if he wasn't charged under MD law in the first place.

He was chased under a 'reasonable suspicion' in the sense of a 'Terry stop'. When he was found to carry a knife that by the judgement of the officers and based on their training was of a prohibited type, they arrested him. A district court commissioner concurred that probable cause that Freddy committed a crime existed and issued a warrant for his arrest.

There will be plenty of arguing about that point, but considering that it has been routine for people to be prosecuted for spring-assisted knives in the city of Baltimore and a district court commissioner issued a valid warrant, I doubt the entire 'false imprisonment' thing will go far either.

he was healthy when he was loaded into the van,
Looking at the video, he was dragging his left leg already. Being in the 'broken spine business', myself, it would seem most likely to me that his neck was accidentally broken when the bike cops took him down by grabbing his head stopping him from an all-out run. He was in trouble during the first stop and one of the officers helped him back up on the bench. The idea that he broke his neck from moving around within the narrow confines of that cell is rather far fetched.

and when he was unloaded he was rushed to Shock Trauma where he died of injuries inflicted by the police.
Actually, at this point we dont know how he suffered the injury. It would have been really neat if there had been an investigation into what happend.


The fundamental question is whether our all safety is improved in any way if the cops chase petty drug dealers around the neighborhoods. It is rare that they catch a big fish and all the little fish get relased 'on their own recognizance' or with ridiculously low bail amounts. We need ask Martin O'Malley who introduced this silly chasing game in Baltimore what he thinks. The next idiocy is why there is a patchwork of knife-laws across the state which entirely incomprehensible even to the police officers who are supposed to enforce them.
 
Last edited:
In a first step, it will be up to a district court judge to decide whether this charge will stand. Considering how sloppy this charge sheet was put together (wrong names, wrong addresses) and the nature of what is being charged, I wouldn't be suprised if the murder charge goes by the wayside right then (a charge btw. that doesn't exist in MD law, she just stuck a phrase from old common law together with a definition from MD code).



He was arrested under a local ordinance that outlaws switchblades assisted by a spring. While the states attorney was correct to state that the spring-assisted knife he was carrying was 'legal to own under maryland law', it has been the practice of her own office to charge people for possession of spring-assisted knives under the Baltimore city ordinance. So either the SA is clueless, or she is intentionally misleading if she states that the knife was 'legal under MD law' if he wasn't charged under MD law in the first place.

He was chased under a 'reasonable suspicion' in the sense of a 'Terry stop'. When he was found to carry a knife that by the judgement of the officers and based on their training was of a prohibited type, they arrested him. A district court commissioner concurred that probable cause that Freddy committed a crime existed and issued a warrant for his arrest.

There will be plenty of arguing about that point, but considering that it has been routine for people to be prosecuted for spring-assisted knives in the city of Baltimore and a district court commissioner issued a valid warrant, I doubt the entire 'false imprisonment' thing will go far either.

Looking at the video, he was dragging his left leg already. Being in the 'broken spine business', myself, it would seem most likely to me that his neck was accidentally broken when the bike cops took him down by grabbing his head stopping him from an all-out run. He was in trouble during the first stop and one of the officers helped him back up on the bench. The idea that he broke his neck from moving around within the narrow confines of that cell is rather far fetched.

Actually, at this point we dont know how he suffered the injury. It would have been really neat if there had been an investigation into what happend.


The fundamental question is whether our all safety is improved in any way if the cops chase petty drug dealers around the neighborhoods. It is rare that they catch a big fish and all the little fish get relased 'on their own recognizance' or with ridiculously low bail amounts. We need ask Martin O'Malley who introduced this silly chasing game in Baltimore what he thinks. The next idiocy is why there is a patchwork of knife-laws across the state which entirely incomprehensible even to the police officers who are supposed to enforce them.

Let's just assume that all of that is true for a moment (it's not, and even your characterization of the knife is bs), what is the justification for a police officer denying medical attention to someone that needs it (the inhaler)?

Cops aren't smart enough to determine the legality of a knife, but suddenly are capable of determining the legitimacy of a health concern?
 
Let's just assume that all of that is true for a moment (it's not, and even your characterization of the knife is bs), what is the justification for a police officer denying medical attention to someone that needs it (the inhaler)?

The justification is that it is very common for arrestees to ask for medical attention and if an ambulance is called to check on them, most of the time they are found to be ok. Central lockup in Baltimore is a truly awful place (and Freddie had enjoyed the hospitality there many times before), of course spending a couple of hours at the hospital rather than in processing is highly preferable. After wasting a lot of time babysitting an arrestee in the ER a couple of times, they may get a bit habituated to the 'I can't breathe' refrain.

Three separate officers looked at him and found him to be ok, it turns out they were wrong. The question is: Does being wrong amount to a criminal offense ?

Cops aren't smart enough to determine the legality of a knife, but suddenly are capable of determining the legitimacy of a health concern?
According to other BPD officers, the classification of a spring-assisted knife as prohibited under Baltimore city code was in line with the guidance officers received from the states attorneys office during academy and recurrent training.

It is a stupid law to begin with. Why outlaw a thing rather than actions ? A switchblade or stiletto sitting in someones desk drawer is no more or less dangerous than a butcher block full of kitchen knives.
 
Last edited:
They are doing the same with the N word, or any other fact that does not fit their agenda..... Just look at the text books kids read nowadays.... Major historical facts get deleted or altered...:mad2::mad2::mad2::mad:....


It's easier to re-write history than to face reality today, head on. It has always been so.

Good thing we all use Wikipedia nowadays to look things up, so it can be edited in near-real-time. Those pesky printed books didn't allow for such easy editing.
 
It's easier to re-write history than to face reality today, head on. It has always been so.

Good thing we all use Wikipedia nowadays to look things up, so it can be edited in near-real-time. Those pesky printed books didn't allow for such easy editing.

You're actually buying into the idea that ****** has ever meant anything besides a racial epithet for black folk?
 
You're actually buying into the idea that ****** has ever meant anything besides a racial epithet for black folk?

Etymology can be hard for people.
 
Etymology can be hard for people.

I guess so. The etymology has roots in Spanish as "negro" (or negar and neger, depending on which root is used) or "black."

No where is the word "ignorant" involved in the etymology of the word. It also doesn't refer to people of other colors...

edit: The joy of the internet is that we can all come together and spout out bull**** that we have heard over the years. The bad part of the internet is that when you say something stupid, like "****** wasn't always a racial epithet," it is really easy to fact check and find the truth.

Google - ruining old white people's long held beliefs, one at a time.
 
Last edited:
skyhog obviously has bought in on the convenient lie that in absense of facts, it is all about racism. what a shame.
 
Google - ruining old white people's long held beliefs, one at a time.

It shows that google is the main source of your education on these matters.
 
Last edited:
skyhog obviously has bought in on the convenient lie that in absense of facts, it is all about racism. what a shame.

Its not all about racism, and I never said it was. But sorry, "Ghetto Thug" is a racist term. Calling "******" anything other than a racist term is insane.

The problem is not one of racism (although that is definitely a part), the problem is the amount of power afforded to men and women who are rarely held accountable for their life-changing (or ending) mistakes - mistakes that if made by anyone without a badge would likely lead to significant consequences.

Calling a situation where someone is afforded weeks before charges are filed in a pretty open and shut case a "rush judgment" really only underlines the point - if you or I had grabbed someone, stuffed them in the back of a van without cause (read: no valid reason to arrest), and they died, I guarantee you that we wouldn't be walking around as free men for weeks while the SA or DA debated whether to file charges, and I guarantee you even further that our bail would be set much higher.

A police officer should be treated as a normal citizen, afterall, that is all they are - citizens with a badge and a job to do. That they believe their job is much more dangerous than it is isn't an excuse to literally get away with murder, any more than a nuclear power operator randomly killing people would be.

In the point of the original post, breaking into a vacant building, where there were no victims, should not be a capitol offense. Once the mistake of shooting him occurred, certainly standing back and watching him cry for his mommy while they disallow his mother access shouldn't be considered acceptable.

In the point of Gray, telling a man who can't breathe that he doesn't need medical attention is depraved heart murder in and of itself, even without the van or the "rough ride." But then, throwing in the rough ride and the unsecured arrestee puts a fine point on the charge.

Lets go to a different case real quick - a man getting shot accidentally by an officer intending to use a Taser (Eric Harris). First off, accidentally shooting him would still warrant a murder charge if you or I had done it. You'd never see a legitimate defense being "Oops, I meant to hit him with a non-lethal weapon, but grabbed the wrong one!" Moreover, saying "**** your breath!" to a man who was just accidentally shot and knows he is going to die is just heartless. Who does that? The "brave and finest" of our defenders? I guarantee you that if I had accidentally taken someone's life, I would probably feel bad enough to avoid antagonizing him as he died.

Its easy to sit back, as an adult that doesn't and has never faced this stuff and say "meh, they're ghetto thugs so its just one less person to worry about." It is much harder when you find yourself in an unwinnable situation where an officer is intent to kill you, and no matter what you do, you are going to die. Stay there, and risk being shot because your cell phone looks like a gun. Run, and risk being shot because suddenly, merely running away from an officer is enough to justify deadly force.

And then top all that off with a very large contingent of people in the United States that will defend that officer's right to kill you by avoiding oversight that could make a difference because "it will make the officer's job harder." Sorry - it should be hard to take a man's life. It should be even harder to justify why it was necessary. The moment we make it easy to do so is the moment we run into issues like we have today, where police don't even have to think twice about pulling the trigger.
 
It shows that google is the main source of your education on these matter.

You do realize that Google provides no content, but has a fantastic wealth of information that other, reputable sources do provide, right?

I'm guessing you get your information from the library, using the dewey decimal system to look up old magazine and newspaper articles on Microfiche?

Or perhaps, you're more content in relying on word of mouth from other people that have no peer review or fact checking behind them? You hate "snopes" too, right? "They're all liberal garbage!"
 
Its not all about racism, and I never said it was. But sorry, "Ghetto Thug" is a racist term. Calling "******" anything other than a racist term is insane.

.

So. It's not about racism, but it's racist.

Got it.

Someday you will have to explain how you progressives get away with living off of that kind of logic.
 
So. It's not about racism, but it's racist.

Got it.

Someday you will have to explain how you progressives get away with living off of that kind of logic.

So - I'm not a progressive, first off.

Secondly, you are being intentionally obtuse. This is not a racist issue, but there are certain components that are definitely racist. As a corrolary - screaming "******!" is racist. Screaming in general is not.
 
So - I'm not a progressive, first off.

Secondly, you are being intentionally obtuse. This is not a racist issue, but there are certain components that are definitely racist. As a corrolary - screaming "******!" is racist. Screaming in general is not.

Nope. I disagree and find your logic to be a great big fail, wrapped in a patina of political correctness.
 
So - I'm not a progressive, first off.

Secondly, you are being intentionally obtuse. This is not a racist issue, but there are certain components that are definitely racist. As a corrolary - screaming "******!" is racist. Screaming in general is not.

Richard Pryor said N***** thousands of times and made ten of millions of doing it.... Was he racist????:dunno::dunno:.

Jessie Jackson was recorded saying it on a hot mike just a couple of years ago... Is he racist ??:dunno::dunno::dunno:..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Waitin for an answer Skyhog.....
 
Unless you are living in the 17th century, the term is etymologically offensive. The fact that it had neutral origins in the 1500s and 1600s doesn't change the fact that later than that and to the current time (which is really all that matters) the term is presumed derogatory in most contexts.
 
Unless you are living in the 17th century, the term is etymologically offensive. The fact that it had neutral origins in the 1500s and 1600s doesn't change the fact that later than that and to the current time (which is really all that matters) the term is presumed derogatory in most contexts.

I have lost track of which term we are nitpickig about. Still 'thug' ?
 
First off, accidentally shooting him would still warrant a murder charge if you or I had done it. .

No it wouldn't. You said it yourself: 'accidentally shooting him'. Murder, by legal definition, required a specific mindset. 'Accidental' isn't it.

Involuntary Manslaughter at worst (in Texas at least).
 
I have lost track of which term we are nitpickig about. Still 'thug' ?
Re: thug...

1) Reliable Sources last week discussed it in a segment.

2) on "Dancing With The Stars" one of the contestants had a t-shirt that read:

779ccb1df758c9ae49399c05713c07cf.jpg
 
No it wouldn't. You said it yourself: 'accidentally shooting him'. Murder, by legal definition, required a specific mindset. 'Accidental' isn't it.

Involuntary Manslaughter at worst (in Texas at least).

Sorry - but you're wrong.

You're right about "intent" being a requirement, but you are wrong that one cannot prove intent as you sit on someone's back and shoot them point blank with a gun.

Otherwise, I could shoot someone in the face, and later say "Well, I didn't mean to kill him, I was simply trying to injure him" and never be charged with murder.
 
Sorry - but you're wrong.

You're right about "intent" being a requirement, but you are wrong that one cannot prove intent as you sit on someone's back and shoot them point blank with a gun.

Otherwise, I could shoot someone in the face, and later say "Well, I didn't mean to kill him, I was simply trying to injure him" and never be charged with murder.

Look, you want to argue with every comment I make. That's fine, whatever. But Ive been doing this a LOT longer than YOU have and I (apparently) know the law better than you do. The charge of murder is very specific. It requires a specific mental culpability, which you cannot sustain in the case of the Oklahoma deputy.

While Im at it, youre also wrong about 'shooting someone in the face' because its 'commonly known' that 'shooting someone in the face' is typically fatal.
 
You're right about "intent" being a requirement, but you are wrong that one cannot prove intent as you sit on someone's back and shoot them point blank with a gun.

Otherwise, I could shoot someone in the face, and later say "Well, I didn't mean to kill him, I was simply trying to injure him" and never be charged with murder.

His intent was to restrain someone who was resisting detention. It was not his intent to kill the man.

If you shoot someone in the face with the intent to maim them, your conduct is so reckless that you would have to expect that it leads to the death of the person. You would rightfully end up with a 2nd degree murder charge.

It is different.

Plenty of negligence and fail to go around in the case in Tulsa, most of it falls on the sheriff who allowed his campaign contributor to play cop.
 
Look, you want to argue with every comment I make. That's fine, whatever. But Ive been doing this a LOT longer than YOU have and I (apparently) know the law better than you do. The charge of murder is very specific. It requires a specific mental culpability, which you cannot sustain in the case of the Oklahoma deputy.

While Im at it, youre also wrong about 'shooting someone in the face' because its 'commonly known' that 'shooting someone in the face' is typically fatal.

I'm nor arguing every point you make, I am arguing very specific points here.

How can you argue that shooting someone in the face is commonly known to be fatal but shooting someone point blank in the back is not? Sure, there's the claim that he grabbed the wrong weapon, but is thst really a valid defense for me to make if I did the same thing?

"It isn't murder your honor. I didn't mean to shoot him with my gun, I meant to shoot him with my taser, which I had intentionally put in the spot my gun goes and has a different trigger mechanism and weight and color and safety. His death was an accident which means I had no intent to kill him."

Wouldn't fly for a citizen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top