I stand corrected. The flight itself could cause them to pursue. It is not, however, against the law.
“Indicated” does not equal “said”. I wasn’t quoting her. I will below.
Her statement, in pertinent (sub)part:
“Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray. Accordingly Lt. Rice Officer MIller and Office Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray.”
As for her saying that no one is above the law, well, she knows that’s political (pandering) bullshit.
So she was not talking about running after Gray, was she. You were wrong. She did not indicate, as you claimed, “that the police did not have probable cause to run after the guy for turning around and running in the other direction”.
They didn’t have the requisite specific and articulable facts that a crime had been, was being or about to be committed. What was relayed in a time crunch was bound to fall apart under scrutiny. In general, cops are free to be sloppy in their work, and only care when a situation like this comes up (or someone has the dough to pay for a criminal defense shark; public defenders tend to succumb to the same kind of expediency and sloppiness too).
Typically, one isn’t pressed to come up with a sensible explanation under pressure. Just as they don’t operate by default with video in mind (yet), they also don’t yet operate with a “what if a colleague beats or otherwise attempts to harm the arrestee on the way to the station?” Typically one’s serious or complete lack of observance of proper procedure isn’t questioned (often not even by the overworked public defender). These were extraordinary circumstances.
Please. You clearly think they did something illegal, because you believe there should be a trial. In general, one does not put people on trial if they don’t think they did anything illegal.
Or to put it another way; I don’t know if you have ever murdered anyone. Maybe you did. I wasn’t there. Must we put you on trial in order to find out?
And had he simply cooperated, he would have been released and free to go once they determined that the knife they arrested him for wasn’t illegal. Instead he chose to run, he chose to get himself shackled, and he chose not to let them buckle him in.
The police didn’t kill Freddie Gray. Freddie Gray killed Freddie Gray.
Not required in The Pit, but this is the second time you make this claim. Cite?
Beyond any cite you may provide, no prisoner chooses the way he is restrained – even less so when it’s illegal, such as a safety belt.
That said, I call bullshit.
He chose to resist to the point where it wasn’t possible to buckle him in.
Like the Maryland State Attorney, I think there’s sufficient evidence to charge. We’ll see if there’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
If there’s sufficient evidence to charge me, then yes.
How do you know this is true? Why do you state as facts things that you could not possibly know for sure?
I don’t expect you to circle back to pick up the thread that is the context of our exchanges. You may feel compelled to divert. I’ll accept that you may not want to circle back/turn around at this point, but anything is possible.
Then that is a problem for the police. They violated protocol by not buckling him in, and now they will be held accountable.
Again, you know this based on … what? And in what (law enforcement) universe would this be true? Wasn’t possible? Silly goose.
That’s what the witnesses say and the video shows. Or is this another one of these things where we don’t know if the witnesses are all lying and we don’t know if the video was CGI?
For that matter, are we sure Freddie Gray even existed?
IANAL, but I think the issue in Illinois v. Wardlow concerned a Terry Stop. If the police have a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity (which is less than probable cause), they can briefly detain you and ask you to identify yourself. If they have an “articulable suspicion that the person detained may armed and dangerous”, they can frisk you. This happened to Wardlow and he was carrying a gun. So the BPD may have had cause for a Terry Stop, but not to arrest F.G.
Pity you can’t realize that you are insane.
I’m not the one arguing that the most sensible reaction to a policeman making eye contact with you is “this cop might kill me if I don’t run away from him, so I should run and then I’ll be OK”.
If you believe that cops are vicious predators stalking the streets (“grizzly bears”, I believe is the term you used) then doing whatever you can to avoid them is simply common sense.
Once again, I need to point out that the person in question was killed while in police custody. So, it seems like a pretty reasonable fear.
You are bat-shit insane – with all due.
There’s NO record at all that it “wasn’t impossible to buckle him.” In fact, quite the opposite, his condition going into the van was such that it’d be extremely hard for him to resist anything they wanted to do to him. THAT is clearly visible.
I repeat - not that it’s needed - you are insane.
Seek professional help.
The State authorities decided to put them on trial. We are holding you to your frequently stated beliefs, which require you to shut up and accept the State’s judgment.