Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread

[kayaker]

Reported.

[elucidator]

Frumious blatherskate! Nebulous poltroon!

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

BTW here’s the detailed article about what the task force is and how it was working.

Doesn’t look like “blue-wall nonsense” to me.

I don’t know if it is “blue wall nonsense”, but that article doesn’t give me an indication one way or the other (I couldn’t find anything about the knife in that article).

[dasmoocher]

It appears there are two investigations: one by the Baltimore police and one by the prosecutor.

From the Sun article:

Mosby’s announcement came just a day after police provided her with a lengthy report on their probe, but prosecutors had conferred with police from time to time, and Mosby said she also used an independent team of investigators. Her announcement Friday took members of the police task force by surprise.

[Sinaptics]

@elucidator

Frumious blatherskate! Nebulous poltroon!

Whoa, there! Let’s not let things get out of hand.

[BrainGlutton]

@kayaker

My every day carry knife is a Kershaw assisted open knife (a “flipper”). People have looked askance and asked me about my “switchblade”, but it is not and is perfectly legal in my state, which forbids switchblades.

Come to think of it, why are switchblades illegal anyway?

[BrainGlutton]

@Terr

You’re mixing up the original detaining and the arrest. The eye-contact, then running then detaining/searching - that does not require “probable cause”. That requires “reasonable suspicion” and the Supreme Court has ruled already that unprovoked flight from police in a high crime area is reason enough for that.

The arrest came after the search and finding the knife. That’s what requires “probable cause”. The prosecutor’s claim that there was no “probable cause” is now debunked. That part of her case is in shambles.

But, having a legal knife on one’s person is not “probable cause.”

[Terr]

@BrainGlutton

But, having a legal knife on one’s person is not “probable cause.”

The article I cited says that

“A Baltimore police task force, commissioned to investigate Gray’s death, analyzed the knife and determined that it was “spring assisted” and in violation of the city’s law.”

[Sinaptics]

@BrainGlutton

Come to think of it, why are switchblades illegal anyway?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634701

[kayaker]

@BrainGlutton

Come to think of it, why are switchblades illegal anyway?

They are legal in some states, illegal in others, and may or may not be lumped together with butterfly knives.

[Czarcasm]

@Terr

The article I cited says that

“A Baltimore police task force, commissioned to investigate Gray’s death, analyzed the knife and determined that it was “spring assisted” and in violation of the city’s law.”

And did they have knowledge that he carried this weapon when they went after him? If not, so what? He could have had plans to blow up Buckingham Palace rolled up in his socks, but unless they know about it before the takedown, they cannot use it as an excuse for the takedown.

[Terr]

@Czarcasm

And did they have knowledge that he carried this weapon when they went after him?

That is legally irrelevant.

If not, so what? He could have had plans to blow up Buckingham Palace rolled up in his socks, but unless they know about it before the takedown, they cannot use it as an excuse for the takedown.

As I said already, the “excuse for the takedown” was Gray’s unprovoked flight from the police. That has already been adjudicated and the Supreme Court has decided that this unprovoked flight was sufficient for detaining him.

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

And did they have knowledge that he carried this weapon when they went after him? If not, so what? He could have had plans to blow up Buckingham Palace rolled up in his socks, but unless they know about it before the takedown, they cannot use it as an excuse for the takedown.

Asked and answered above - a person taking flight upon seeing the police constitutes reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain him. Once they detained him and found the knife, that constituted probable cause to arrest.

[Czarcasm]

@kayaker

They are legal in some states, illegal in others, and may or may not be lumped together with butterfly knives.

And it still isn’t determined what they mean by “spring-assisted”. If it was actually a switchblade, they would just call it that, so what the fuck are they talking about here? Is it maybe a pocketknife where one of the functions uses a spring of some sort?

[Terr]

@Czarcasm

And it still isn’t determined what they mean by “spring-assisted”. If it was actually a switchblade, they would just call it that, so what the fuck are they talking about here? Is it maybe a pocketknife where one of the functions uses a spring of some sort?

It is, actually, irrelevant to the validity of “probable cause” whether the knife was, in fact, illegal or not. As I cited, “probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”.

So if it was reasonable for the arresting police officers to believe that the knife was illegal (and it is pretty well demonstrated that it was reasonable, since the investigating police task force also concluded that it was illegal), then the probable cause was valid. As would be shown, quite easily, by the defense attorneys if this ever gets to court (I doubt it will).

The prosecutor is full of it.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

The prosecutor is full of it.

Nevertheless, if the prosecutor says it was legal, it goes to trial, and the judge decides if the police task force is right or not. The judge will have the last word, and if he says it was a legal pocket knife, then the police task force is full of it.

[Fallen]

@Czarcasm

And did they have knowledge that he carried this weapon when they went after him? If not, so what? He could have had plans to blow up Buckingham Palace rolled up in his socks, but unless they know about it before the takedown, they cannot use it as an excuse for the takedown.

No, they acquired the knowledge only after the chase and seizure of his person (supposedly then seeing the pocket knife clipped to a pants pocket), after the (established as possibly lunatic but in any event disturbed) Lt. Rice allegedly made eye contact with him. Given the wording of and details in the application for statement of charges written by Ofcr. Miller, presented to and signed off by a District Court Commissioner, I’m left wanting to see the police report, which surely mentions other details curiously omitted from the application. (Such as an officer asking him why he was running or otherwise “investigating” whatever it was that constituted the reasonable (specific, articulable) suspicion that he’d committed a crime, was in the middle of committing one, or was about to.)

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

Nevertheless, if the prosecutor says it was legal, it goes to trial, and the judge decides if the police task force is right or not. The judge will have the last word, and if he says it was a legal pocket knife, then the police task force is full of it.

1. No. The jury decides, not the judge.

2. It is, actually, irrelevant to the validity of “probable cause” whether the knife was, in fact, illegal or not. As I cited, “probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”.

So if it was reasonable for the arresting police officers to believe that the knife was illegal (and it is pretty well demonstrated that it was reasonable, since the investigating police task force also concluded that it was illegal), then the probable cause was valid. As would be shown, quite easily, by the defense attorneys if this ever gets to court (I doubt it will).

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

So if it was reasonable for the arresting police officers to believe that the knife was illegal (and it is pretty well demonstrated that it was reasonable, since the investigating police task force also concluded that it was illegal), then the probable cause was valid.

If the investigating police task force was an objective fact-finder, sure. But I don’t see how anyone can be ready to conclude that at this point. Maybe they were, or maybe they’re just an arm of the blue wall.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

If the investigating police task force was an objective fact-finder, sure. But I don’t see how anyone can be ready to conclude that at this point. Maybe they were, or maybe they’re just an arm of the blue wall.

Whether it is a fact or not is irrelevant. Whether thinking that it was a fact is reasonable is.

Let’s put it another way. Let’s say that the officers, instead of a knife, found a bag of white powder on Gray. Let’s say they arrest him, and later it is found that the bag was of some legal substance. Was there probable cause for arrest?