New Development's in the Freddie Gray Case.

[73chief]

An email memo surfaces showing Baltimore States attorney Mosby actually instructed the Western District Commander of the Baltimore PD to increase pro-active policing on the very corner Freddie Gray was arrested on. This directive occurred one month before the Freddie Gray arrest.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-mosby-email-20150609-story.html#page=1

Not been a good week for Mosby after a judge ruled against her request to place a gag order on all parties involved in the case.

New rumors are now being leaked out of Baltimore City hall that indicates the knife Gray was carrying was illegal by Baltimore City ordinance. This will be disclosed in July after the official arraignments. If true, this basically eliminates 2/3 of the pending charges since they are based on the premise that the arrest was unwarranted and illegal. Also addition information being leaked that the autopsy report shows evidence that strongly contradicts that Gray's death was caused by police behavior.

This case might actually completely fall apart at the arraignment itself.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

If all is true....this is about to get very interesting. If it doesn't go Mosby's or the Prosecution's way....expect more violence and riots.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Yep, get the order to police heavier than (the polie) get arrested for heavier policing.

Seems Baltimore now doesn't like the "light" policing they are getting.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Can you guys clarify your thinking for me?

...the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts...

"State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.

The defense attorneys believe she is now a witness, and therefore shouldn't prosecute. I understand that.

Robinson told Rice and the other officers to begin a "daily narcotics initiative" focused on North Avenue and Mount Street, according to the email, and said he would be collecting "daily measurables" from them on their progress.

"This is effective immediately," Robinson wrote, noting that the officers should use cameras, informants and other covert policing tactics to get the job done.

Ok, so in essence, I see that the Prosecutor told them to step up their law enforcement in that specific area.

How/why does that eliminate any potential charges, even if they are "based on the premise that the arrest was unwarranted and illegal."?

Here is specifically where I am confused. If a Boss tells their employee to do their job at place A....and they then use illegal/unwarranted tactics to do the job at place A.........how does that relieve them from their illegal acts?

 

[Lone Clone]

An email memo surfaces showing Baltimore States attorney Mosby actually instructed the Western District Commander of the Baltimore PD to increase pro-active policing on the very corner Freddie Gray was arrested on. This directive occurred one month before the Freddie Gray arrest.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-mosby-email-20150609-story.html#page=1

Not been a good week for Mosby after a judge ruled against her request to place a gag order on all parties involved in the case.

New rumors are now being leaked out of Baltimore City hall that indicates the knife Gray was carrying was illegal by Baltimore City ordinance. This will be disclosed in July after the official arraignments. If true, this basically eliminates 2/3 of the pending charges since they are based on the premise that the arrest was unwarranted and illegal. Also addition information being leaked that the autopsy report shows evidence that strongly contradicts that Gray's death was caused by police behavior.

This case might actually completely fall apart at the arraignment itself.

I think it's pretty clear that to give Mosby the benefit of every doubt, she is in far over her head.

 

[HawkeyesAndCubs1023]

This is an extremely weak case from what we know. Does anybody know what kind of Defense Attorneys the officers have? I reckon the police union ponied up bigtime for their attorney fees.

 

[73chief]

Can you guys clarify your thinking for me?

...the office of prosecutor Marilyn Mosby asked police to target the intersection with "enhanced" drug enforcement efforts...

"State's Attorney Mosby asked me to look into community concerns regarding drug dealing in the area of North Ave and Mount St," Joshua Rosenblatt, division chief of Mosby's Crime Strategies Unit, wrote in a March 17 email to a Western District police commander.

The defense attorneys believe she is now a witness, and therefore shouldn't prosecute. I understand that.

Robinson told Rice and the other officers to begin a "daily narcotics initiative" focused on North Avenue and Mount Street, according to the email, and said he would be collecting "daily measurables" from them on their progress.

"This is effective immediately," Robinson wrote, noting that the officers should use cameras, informants and other covert policing tactics to get the job done.

Ok, so in essence, I see that the Prosecutor told them to step up their law enforcement in that specific area.

How/why does that eliminate any potential charges, even if they are "based on the premise that the arrest was unwarranted and illegal."?

Here is specifically where I am confused. If a Boss tells their employee to do their job at place A....and they then use illegal/unwarranted tactics to do the job at place A.........how does that relieve them from their illegal acts?

There are multiple charges of false imprisonment. Those charges would be dropped immediately if it is determined the officers were in the right to make the arrest. you can't falsely imprison someone if you are making a legal arrest. The charges of misconduct on 4 of the officers were also based on strictly on the premise that the arrest was illegal. Those are all now dropped. I believe all of the officers were charged with 2nd degree assault, some with more than one count. They were charged with assault simply because the arrest was illegal and they had no right to physically contact Gray. If the arrest is determined to be legal, they now have the legal right to initiate physical contact and those assault charges are now dismissed. That's 8 or 9 of the charges right there.

By my count the officers are being charged with 29 counts combined. 19 of those counts are based exclusively off of Mosby's opinion that the arrest was illegal. If the judge rules in favor of the defense motion at arraignment that the knife was illegal, and it sounds like it was, then the officers were correct to arrest Gray. Those 19 counts get dismissed which means all of the charges for 3 of the officers completely go away and they go back home.

 

[Timschoh]

Mosby = Holder with a vagina.

 

[73chief]

I think it's pretty clear that to give Mosby the benefit of every doubt, she is in far over her head.

She is in way over her head. I guess the Mayor was even on the radio today and she is starting to distance herself from Mosby which makes me think the rumors coming out of City Hall that the evidence around the knife and the autopsy are going to strongly support the police officer's case.

I love seeing these 2-bit inner city politicians milking 6-figure salaries off of the tax payers because they can't succeed in the private sector, look like the second rate people that they are.

 

[Arbitr8]

I think it's pretty clear that to give Mosby the benefit of every doubt, she is in far over her head.

I knew that the minute she opened her mouth.

 

[coffhawk]

Mosby = Holder with a vagina.

And a lower IQ

 

[Timschoh]

And a lower IQ

But equally venal.

 

[theIowaHawk]

There are multiple charges of false imprisonment. Those charges would be dropped immediately if it is determined the officers were in the right to make the arrest. you can't falsely imprison someone if you are making a legal arrest.

Of course, but being told to patrol in a certain area, even told to do so "aggressively", doesn't make a normally-illegal arrest legal.

You aren't answering my question: Why does the article in the OP change any of the facts?

 

[theIowaHawk]

This is an extremely weak case from what we know. Does anybody know what kind of Defense Attorneys the officers have? I reckon the police union ponied up bigtime for their attorney fees.

The quick google I did brought up these lawyers:
William H. "Billy" Murphy
Marc Zayon
Ivan Bates
Catherine Flynn

I'm sure it ain't cheap.

 

[TexMichFan]

There are multiple charges of false imprisonment. Those charges would be dropped immediately if it is determined the officers were in the right to make the arrest. you can't falsely imprison someone if you are making a legal arrest.

Of course, but being told to patrol in a certain area, even told to do so "aggressively", doesn't make a normally-illegal arrest legal.

You aren't answering my question: Why does the article in the OP change any of the facts?

My answer to your question is nothing changes because of the fact that police were told to enhanced their work around the area where the arrest was made. I would like to know why this area was singled out for enhanced enforcement.

The knife issue is laid out pretty well by 73cheif above. If the knife is illegal then a lot of the charges go away. From what I have read it seems the state and city may have different definitions of what is legal and illegal and Mosby appears to using the state definition. If the knife meets one or other definition of illegal it would be very hard to make the illegal arrest charges stick.

I think this going to end up another case where the prosecution is going to over charge and under deliver.

 

[HRiscool]

My answer to your question is nothing changes because of the fact that police were told to enhanced their work around the area where the arrest was made. I would like to know why this area was singled out for enhanced enforcement.

The knife issue is laid out pretty well by 73cheif above. If the knife is illegal then a lot of the charges go away. From what I have read it seems the state and city may have different definitions of what is legal and illegal and Mosby appears to using the state definition. If the knife meets one or other definition of illegal it would be very hard to make the illegal arrest charges stick.

I think this going to end up another case where the prosecution is going to over charge and under deliver.

Another tard who doesn't click on links.

 

[theIowaHawk]

But it has nothing to do with the email.

The knife, nothing. It either was, or was not, an illegal arrest.

The DA, or anyone else, telling them to do their job in that area does not change that question above.

 

[Vroom_C14]

There are multiple charges of false imprisonment. Those charges would be dropped immediately if it is determined the officers were in the right to make the arrest. you can't falsely imprison someone if you are making a legal arrest.

Of course, but being told to patrol in a certain area, even told to do so "aggressively", doesn't make a normally-illegal arrest legal.

You aren't answering my question: Why does the article in the OP change any of the facts?

why was it an illegal arrest? gray ran when he saw the police, they told him to stop he didn't - he got arrested. If he had stopped right then and there - this thread doesn't exist.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If you are right, then you will be right. My question in this thread was why this email from the prosecutor's office changes any of those facts.

It appears that you agree that it doesn't.

 

[NoleandDawg]

There are multiple charges of false imprisonment. Those charges would be dropped immediately if it is determined the officers were in the right to make the arrest. you can't falsely imprison someone if you are making a legal arrest.

Of course, but being told to patrol in a certain area, even told to do so "aggressively", doesn't make a normally-illegal arrest legal.

You aren't answering my question: Why does the article in the OP change any of the facts?

The facts, at least as far as I understand them, do not make this appear to be an illegal arrest. Indeed the facts are quite similar to to those in the Wardlow v. Illinois case.

 

[Habah]

We get to watch liberals burn down their town again! Isn't liberalism wonderful