So are you telling us we should shoot them in the head with a big gun because they have thick skulls?
Funny…there seems to be a word missing here. .what is it?
Tug?
Rug?
Bug?
Can’t think of it. But I’m sure that it will come to me.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is the rule of the court system – it does not seem to apply in the interval between arrest and indictment.
Terr, maybe you should tell me what you believe Mosby indicated when she not only called it an illegal arrest but specifically leveled the (even more extraordinary) charges of *false imprisonment *against the arresting officers involved (not the post-arrest custodial officers). False imprisonment has a particular meaning, and in Md the language in a charging document would be to “unlawfully and intentionally detain” a person (which is different from arrest). Should you want to separate out the pursuit of Gray itself as lawful before the (not stop and frisk but instead) “apprehen[sion]” of Gray, as though his running were itself reasonable (specific, articulable) suspicion on which to believe an arrestable offense had occurred or was in the process of occurring.
I’d also like you to examine the application for statement of charges filed by Miller those 14 (?) hours after the arrest, and pay particular attention to his unfortunate (but perhaps he felt necessary) choice of words (such as “apprehend[ed]” v. stop and ask Gray why he was running. (And, not for nothing, this assumes Miller even accurately characterized the situation as Gray making eye contact and then running.)
For fun, you should research and discuss what is “unprovoked flight” and ponder why Miller belatedly selected that term to describe what kicked off the chase as it were. While what is “unprovoked” is up for debate, you may not want to exhaust yourself by examining the local arguments on what qualifies as “provoked” (stimulated, gave rise to a particular reaction/action) flight.
I’ll be back Monday.
You really should stop digging. You are wrong about the illegality of pursuit of Grey, as the Supreme Court decision very clearly shows, and you were lying about what Mosby said. I thought that you just misunderstood Mosby’s statements, but since you’re doubling down on it, it seems you were lying.
Probably should be a thread about this one
I remember the reaction that certain elements of the population had when the officers were acquitted.
Funny thing. I had a friend who was black, and actually did bounce a .357 round off his skull. He even had a scar to prove it.
We never let him live that down.
What’s there to question? The overwhelming majority of this thread is people complaining about the idea of the police doing their job.
“The day I can’t do my job drunk, is the day I turn in my badge and gun”
Overcharging aimed at gaining leverage?
The problem with the police “doing their job” is in the way they have to do it. In order to “catch criminals”, the police must be able to anticipate what the criminals will do. Which means they have to be able to think like criminals. Recent history (and less-recent history) seems to indicate that those thought patterns cannot safely be compartmentalized. They leak into the station houses and city halls and court rooms, to the point where it becomes difficult to discern anything other than an ongoing war between the official criminals and the unsanctioned criminals.
Perhaps you should read it again? Because it is actually about police failing at their job.
You are allowed to move your lips as you read…
No, it’s not everyone. There are a lot of people on this board with whom I disagree, and I regard them as anything from generally decent people with whom I have an incidental disagreement, to assholes who don’t give a shit about things that are genuinely important.
You are the only poster who is able to regularly make me recoil from my computer in moral disgust. The Stormfronters couldn’t do that to me. That unrepentant pedophile who used to post here couldn’t do that to me. Only you, Smapti, routinely take positions that make me think, “A person would have to be a total monster to possibly think that.”
You are, quite literally, and by a wide margin, the single worst person I have ever encountered on the Straight Dope.
The purpose of law enforcement is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
The “controversy” we’re encountering here is that the pro-crime lobby is attempting to convince people that they’re being treated unfairly because they’re getting caught.
Then perhaps you need to reexamine your moral code.
Least he has one.
As do I. Mine tells me that order and peace imposed from above by the consent of all are better than people causing mass violence and destruction whenever they don’t get their way. Mine tells me that I don’t get to ignore the laws society has agreed on simply because I don’t like them. Mine tells me that those who think they can do whatever they want deserve whatever they get. Mine tells me that we’re all better off in a world with more Darren Wilsons and fewer Michael Browns.
Honestly, WTF is the “pro-Crime Lobby”? Something that exists inside your head?
No, you don’t. A kneejerk obeisance to authority is not a moral code, it’s a substitute for someone who is incapable of developing one on their own.