Mosby Relies On Lack of Seatbelt and Van Within Probable Cause Outline “Bill of Particulars” – But Doesn’t Cite Individual Officers….

Marilyn Mosby files some additional statements in response to defense requests for substantiation of “probable cause”.

However, the oddly worded response -obviously intentionally obtuse- does not provide much additional detail as to how she can derive legal charges against the Baltimore Six.

Baltimore six 2

To the contrary, if you are following the ongoing construct of her claims, based on her prior sunlight avoidance tactics, you can find additional support for a reasonable belief the ME report is not supporting Mosby’s public assertions. From the Baltimore Sun:

[…] The office of State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby filed the documents in response to motions by the officers’ defense attorneys requesting more information on her reasons for filing the charges.

Gray died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody, according to police and prosecutors. But how he was injured remains unclear. His autopsy results have not been made public.

Mosby’s office has tried to keep that information out of the public eye. Prosecutors sought a gag order in the case, but the motion was opposed by the officers’ attorneys and denied by a judge on procedural grounds.

The defense attorneys had asked for more detail on the murder and manslaughter charges. The prosecutors did not provide it.

“A Bill of Particulars provides due process notice of the charges lodged,” they wrote, “but that process does not entail presenting the State’s case via public, pre-trial pleadings such that the entire possible jury pool has heard, considered, and potentially prejudged the evidence before the first witness has even entered the courthouse.”

[…] In explaining second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct charges against Goodson, White, Rice and Porter, prosecutors cited the seatbelt.

They said each officer “caused physical harm” to Gray by failing to secure him in the back of the van, and that the van then acted as an “instrumentality” of each of them and “made harmful contact” with Gray.

Prosecutors also referred to the seatbelt in explaining charges of misconduct in office and reckless endangerment against Nero and Miller. In explaining second-degree assault and misconduct charges against Nero and Miller, they said the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Gray.

The state also cited a lack of probable cause in relation to one of two misconduct in office charges against Rice. (read more)

If you read into the emboldened aspect as above, you might come to the same conclusion we have since following the case from the outset.

Specifically, we are confident the ME report contains a statement (in essence) “the fatal injury occurred inside the van”, ergo Mosby is saying the van “acted as an instrument” for the death.

This prosecution framework is, in essence, really a ‘s-t-r-e-t-c-h’ angle because, in order to prop up the accusation she is making, her argument will rely heavily on proving the failure to put a seatbelt on Freddie Gray was:  A.) Criminally negligent; and, B.) Reflected a depraved heart with an intent to harm Freddie Gray.

mosby and Dolezal

Your thoughts?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Abusive Cops, Agitprop, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Big Stupid Government, Death Threats, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Freddy Gray Death, media bias, Notorious Liars, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to Mosby Relies On Lack of Seatbelt and Van Within Probable Cause Outline “Bill of Particulars” – But Doesn’t Cite Individual Officers….

  1. agryphon says:

    ttwinzz!

    Liked by 4 people

  2. auscitizenmom says:

    IAMAL But, my thoughts are that she has NOTHING. This is all a ruse. AND, she is incompetent as well as a racist.

    Liked by 8 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Darn it. “IANAL” I am not a lawyer

      Like

    • bertdilbert says:

      “They said each officer “caused physical harm” to Gray by failing to secure him in the back of the van, and that the van then acted as an “instrumentality” of each of them and “made harmful contact” with Gray.”

      This might work if it were a CIVIL case looking for money, it is not worthy of a criminal conviction.

      Liked by 3 people

      • siguiriya says:

        I would like to know whether, in the history of the city of Baltimore, any other arrested person ever suffered a severe injury in a police van as a result of not having a seatbelt on, and if so, whether the officers knew about it. It seems to me that in order to convict the State would have to show that such an injury was predictable, that the officers intended it, and that the lack of a seat belt was the cause.. Frankly, it sounds like a freak accident to me, and that’s IF the injury really happened in the van. Does it make sense that the officers would say “hey, let’s mess this guy up. Throw him in the van without a seat belt and maybe something bad will happen.”

        Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      This is all very reminiscent of Mike Nifong. Make the charge and never put any meat on the bones.

      But let’s suppose that the seatbelt issue is a legitimate claim of malfeasance. Thousands have ridden in paddy wagons with no injuries. It was only a few days before that a memo came down to seatbelt prisoners in the van, a memo which had not even been fully circulated and talked about at the time Freddie was arrested. So, there has to be more to Freddie ride in the van than no seatbelt. Mosby makes no allegation of a rough ride. So there’s still no “there” there. There must not be any “there”, and this is all manufactured for political reasons just as we saw in the Duke lacrosse case. Otherwise, why not allege a rough ride – or whatever would had to have happened – in order for her to get to these charges? If her claims are legitimate and there is evidence, why hide it? If she has evidence of something malicious being done to Freddie, she can say what that was without revealing the specific details of evidence she reasonably believes proves it. Or is this, as I’ve suggested before, all she’s got and she used this to get the ME to rule it a homicide so she could bring the charges? In the Duke case, Nifong’s investigators manipulated and (easily) convinced the (biased) sexual assault nurse at Duke Medical Center to change and massage her report. Sexual assault nurses (SANs) go through a very rigorous training and certification process because assault prosecutions involve very close scrutiny just as other serious prosecutions do. MEs have an even heavier burden when performing autopsies. These are not things that professionals take lightly and they understand that accuracy without bias IS their reputation. So either Mosby has evidence of wrongdoing in the van ride or she convinced the ME that there is evidence through her shamed fraudster of an investigator’s report. If the former, why will she not make the allegation? It cannot just be that Freddie wasn’t seatbelted or that would have been the policy long ago and everywhere else as well.

      Liked by 5 people

  3. BobNoxious says:

    Wow. So she isn’t saying the acts that occurred while securing Gray were the assault- in relation to the three arresting officers (the white officers); she is trying to tie them all up over the lack of a seatbelt. If that’s really her strategy, I could honestly see the entire cases against the arresting officers tossed on a Motion to Dismiss- everything from the illegal arrest to assault.

    I think it’s becoming clear that Mosby has backed herself into a corner and is trying everything to stall until she can find a way to slime out. The problem with that is, I don’t think she left herself an out.

    Liked by 4 people

    • rokshox says:

      Why wouldn’t the lack of a seatbelt and the rough ride have similarly affected the other passenger in the van? Did the officers conspire to harm both passengers?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Kitty Smith says:

      If being transported without a seatbelt causes such severe injuries, seatbelting prisoners would have been the policy all along there and everywhere. If she has evidence of a rough ride, she can make that allegation easily without revealing the specific evidence she has that that occurred. So her silence now after shooting her big fat mouth off and showboating with the stars doesn’t add up one bit.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John VI says:

        police unions would fight any ordinance that requires police officers to secure a seatbelt on a prisoner for the simple reason that seatbelting an uncooperative prisoner puts the officers face and neck within biting distance of the prisoner.

        Liked by 3 people

        • DT says:

          Biting, headbutting, knee to the face or throat. Leaning over someone intent on harming you exposes you to a variety of methods to do so.

          Liked by 1 person

        • art tart says:

          JohnVI ~ I respectfully disagree w/you’re comment beause the facts prove it to be wrong. It was “mandatory policy” requiring Officers to secure a prisoner in a seat belt/restraint to transport a prisoner. The Police Union in Baltimore hasn’t fought the mandatory policy which was in place.

          Les has shared within this thread about the “mandatory policy,” and the second highlighted paragraph explains how restrainsts are to be used.

          Find Les’ comment:
          Les says:
          June 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm

          The Defense Attorney’s are not fighting mandatory policy or the transport van didn’t have restraints.

          Like

      • OP says:

        I suspect the cameras that recorded the van’s movement will be able to prove that the van was either traveling at a high speed or was flowing with normal traffic. I’m sure the defense attorneys will record the condition of the street, the time that lapsed between camera etc.

        I suspect that the van was traveling at around 30 mph or less, the streets are probably average hopefully not filled with huge potholes…

        Im sure the defense will be Tomdisprove her “assertion” and “wish”…she’s going to have a hard time proving how a rough ride was “given” to FG.

        Like

        • Armie says:

          Eight and a half minutes elapsed from the time the van left North and Pennsylvania to the time the call for an ambulance at the Police station was received. The distance is .8 miles.

          If you figure a minute and a half after the van got to the station before the call for the ambulance went out, that’d still make the average speed of the trip less than 7 miles per hour.

          The factor that continues to be ignored by the prosecution is the five and a half minute delay between the request for an ambulance and the time one was dispatched. The five minute point for a non-breather is the point where permanent brain damage starts to become an issue. There was a legitimate reason for that delay, but nevertheless it’s potentially a factor in the death, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the officers.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            Armie shared: “continues to be ignored by the prosecution is the five and a half minute delay between the request for an ambulance and the time one was dispatched.”

            Armie, what Mosby is saying is that paramedics should have been “dispatched” while Gray was unresponsive at the previous stop. We don’t even know if Gray was breathing at this point since Sgt. White talked to the back of Gray’s head. Sgt. White made the decision not to call for paramedics, then the van continuted to the Station. When the van arrived at the Station, Gray was in cardiac arrest.. What you aren’t considering is that Gray may not have been breathing for a longer period of time than the 5 1/2 minutes you are counting at the Station which is critical.

            The arresting Officers had nothing to do w/securing Gray nor calling Paramedics, the securing of Gray was the responsibility of Goodson, the driver. Goodson called for Sgt. White to observe Gray to see if he needed a paramedic. Calling the Paramedics was the responsibility of Sgt. White when Gray was unresponsive, she didn’t. The decision to continue to the Station was on the 3 AA American Officers.

            Like

    • True Colors says:

      Mosby will be obligated to prove that the lack of a seat belt would reasonably be expected to cause a fatal spinal cord injury to Mr Gray………. e.g. Mosby must cite specific examples of other prisoners who suffered serious injuries in police vans as a direct result of no seat belts.

      Without that her case goes up in smoke fast.

      TC

      Like

      • RJ says:

        So the cops put a bad guy in a paddie wagon. He does what while in there? Screams at the driver, etc.? Makes nasty comments? Challenges the police? If so, what then did the police do–the driver do, if pissed off from this guy’s attitude? Cops love to play “tough guy” with those they don’t like or are giving them trouble, right?

        Didn’t one of those robbers, some years back in California, who were heavily armed and wearing body armor–those guys who shot up everything in sight, who terrorized the cops and from which the cops then got the federal government to begin releasing heavy weaponry to police departments all across America…that robber was shot numerous times and lay on the ground for some time till the cops had medical personnel attend him…wherein he died from his wounds.

        Many thought the cops let him die due to his behavior. What’s to say these cops also didn’t like the guy they placed in the van and did things to show him their attitudes?

        I don’t know the answer to this, but I do think that whatever the outcome this will be a story Ms. Mosby will have at her disposal to use for whatever reasons she deems necessary, even if it is to deflect her losing the charges she presented.

        The cops are in a meat grinder…they will get chopped up, perhaps not to the extent she wishes, but they will be injured, are injured and have been damaged. The question is:

        If Mosby was wrong and choose to follow a political path in her charges, will she get damaged an equal amount that her game has done to the cops? I’m betting she doesn’t think so, or may even not care at this point in time.

        Like

        • True Colors says:

          Many thought the cops let him die due to his behavior. What’s to say these cops also didn’t like the guy they placed in the van and did things to show him their attitudes?

          The police are not required to prove that they did not do this.

          The burden is fully on the prosecutor to prove that the police DID do it. She is required to show concrete evidence which spells out the who, what, when, why and how.

          Your logic is backwards. You are taking the burden of proof off of the prosecutor and putting it onto the accused.

          TC

          Liked by 4 people

      • Burnt Toast says:

        “Mosby must cite specific examples of other prisoners who suffered serious injuries in police vans as a direct result of no seat belts.”

        Correlation is not causation. When you have to start given anecdotes, you concede the fluke / low correlation. Defense question for the no-info jury pool, “Ever ride in a car without using a safety belt? Are you still alive?”

        Like

      • art tart says:

        True Colors ~ the city has paid out in other cases, Philadelphia too, that’s why the Dept made it mandatory policy for seat belts.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-gray-death-baltimore-police-transport-rides/

        Like

        • Armie says:

          In one of those cases, the “unbelted” rider was standing up and yelling at the driver when he lost his balance. Funny thing about the narrative of that particular case is that it states seatbelt use was mandatory (subject to certain exceptions) clear back then.

          Like

          • art tart says:

            Armie ~ The “mandatory policy” came into effect because prisoners weren’t secured. WHY in the world would Officers expect prisoners to do the right thing & remain seated if they weren’t seat belted/restrained? Common sense should have prevailed, it didn’t.

            In one of the cases, the suspect had his hands behind his back, died, had gotten the “nickel ride” which is another reason “mandatory policy” was made. That wasn’t the first nickel ride. That was the case the prisoner died, his family was awarded 7.4 million for the negligence, but the amount was reduced to $ 200,000.00 because that was the Civil Cap.

            Because the City got tired of paying out countless claims of those injured that weren’t seat belted/restrained, the mandatory policy was made.

            Like

    • art tart says:

      BobNoxious ~ I hope you are right, I hope the case against the 3 arresting Officers gets tossed sooner rather than later. Someone had suggested earlier in the case that it was Goodson’s responsibility to secure Gray since he was the driver. I don’t know if that is speculation or fact but it would seem so since he was responsibility for the “ride,” the other 3 Officers responsible for the “arrest.” I don’t know about the other 3 AA Officers.

      This wasn’t a nickel ride, but monetary awards have been made to others for injuries because of no seat belts, 1 for a nickel ride that resulted in death w/prisoner w/hands behind his back/no seat belt.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-gray-death-baltimore-police-transport-rides/

      imo, you would know better since your are an attorney, but I thought this case should always have been a Civil Case w/the maximum award to the family of $ 200,000.00 which, imo, they would get.

      Like

    • AghastInFL says:

      Were there even seat belts in this vehicle? A reporter looked into the County vehicles and stated that only ONE of the county vehicles actually had ‘seat belts’ most had a belt for the prisoner to hold onto while in transport (common to all such transports). Photos showing a vehicle with seat belts show a Ford vehicle, while the van Gray was transported in was a GMC/Chevrolet vehicle. I don’t know, I’m just asking…

      Like

      • art tart says:

        AghastInFL ~ Even the Defense Attorney’s for the Officer’s aren’t claiming the van didn’t have restraints/seat belts nor are they challenging the mandatory policy in place.

        It looks as though the Defense Attorney’s are trying to get their hand on any “training material” to see how much training the Officers had I assume as an argument against Mosby, that would mean the Officers would blame their Superiors for lack of training depeending on what exists.

        Like

        • DT says:

          None of us are privy to the defense strategy so no one can say for certain what the defense will or will not be using. It’s inaccurate to continually state that the defense isn’t contesting or addressing the seat belt policy when one of the B6 defense attorneys has mentioned the policy is not always practical from an officer safety standpoint. According to attorney Michael Davey, who represents at least one of the officers under investigation, Gray was not belted in.

          But he took issue with the rules.

          “Policy is policy, practice is something else,” particularly if a prisoner is combative, Davey told The Associated Press. “It is not always possible or safe for officers to enter the rear of those transport vans that are very small, and this one was very small.”

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/us/freddie-gray-was-injured-in-police-van-baltimore-officers-lawyer-says.html

          They may not be openly advertising their defense to the media but this mention makes me think that the defense may well expand on this issue if it makes it to court and it is necessary to expand on it. The motions that are being filed are not the be all, end all of the defense strategy.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Mosby is claiming that there was a conspiracy among the officers to intentionally cause Freddie Gray’s death by not securing him in the van and then driving in a fashion that caused Gray to be slammed around the interior of the van.

    But, there’s no evidence of a conspiracy. No confessions of guilt. Np snitching by any of those charged, No “overheard” whisperings, No “smoking gun” emails… NOTHING.

    What jury would ever convict these cops purely on the imaginings of Marilyn Mosby and the BGI?

    Oh, wait…. Has anyone bothered to check the whereabouts of the OJ jurors?

    Like

  5. doodahdaze says:

    My thoughts….I think she is a lunatic.

    Liked by 19 people

  6. jetstream says:

    That pretzel logic is going to crumble at the first evidentiary touch.

    In other news:
    Marilyn Mosby’s Father Was A ‘Crooked Cop,’ Police Officer Grandfather Sued For Racial Discrimination
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/12/marilyn-mosbys-father-was-a-crooked-cop-police-officer-grandfather-sued-for-racial-discrimination/

    Cashing in off of deception and bad behavior, seems to be a family trait.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So she had a father and grandfather and an uncle who were policemen and she says she’s from a 5 generation police family. LOL How did she ever get into law school?

      Liked by 2 people

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Or, pass math.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Bryan K says:

        It is called “disparate impact.”

        Like

        • 2x4x8 says:

          the Supreme Court will rule on “Disparate Impact” within the next 5 weeks ( YAY ) in:

          Texas Department of Housing v Inclusive Communities Project

          This is a good structured case for the SC to strike down Disparate Impact theology, and just like Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration, it comes out of Texas, I am also looking forward to the SC deciding Fisher v University of Texas again, they were interested in striking down affirmative action based predominately on race, but found a reason to send it back to the Appeals Court to apply strict scrutiny, encouraged by the liberals on the SC

          Like

          • Burnt Toast says:

            Five of Nine have an opportunity to affirm the laws of probability or refute them.

            Given none of the Nine have ever had an undergrad calc based stats&prob class they won’t even know that they cannot comprehend the basic principles that are are making a ‘decision’ on. Rather like the judge(s) in Italy that found geologists guilty of manslaughter for not predicting an earthquake (they were essentially found guilt of being not being very good at their witchcraft).

            Like

          • moe2004 says:

            She is what we Bostonians call a Metco kid. She lived in a poor part of the city, and was bussed to much better schools.

            Liked by 1 person

      • James F says:

        Maybe Baltimore was the testing ground for common core math when she was in grade school.

        Like

      • jetstream says:

        But it “feels” like she’s been from a 5 generation police family. And, and, and Rachel Dolezal!

        So who are we to judge? /s

        Like

      • Rodney Plonker says:

        I thought the same. Dingbat.

        Like

      • True Colors says:

        I think there was a report that Mosby’s grandfather and that man’s grandfather were both cops.

        TC

        Like

      • John Galt says:

        “How did she ever get into law school?”

        Her LSAT scores were too low for admission. She called schools, threw a pity party and got into one school.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          John Galt ~ And I think a Professor tutored her so she could pass admissions.

          Liked by 1 person

          • BlueDevil says:

            His name was Darryl Roberts, and, he was the lowest ranked professor at Duke a few decades ago. Despite being given extra years in initial contract, and, an extension upon that, he did not produce an academically qualifying book. He received a very good “settlement ” —- despite their having fired a White Political Science Professor simultaneously to cover their bases. Problem with the White professor, was, he was too prolifically published, and, on TV too much. The other Professors were jealous of him.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Kitty Smith says:

      Well now. So five generations of honorable police officers is really two generations of thugs and grifters.

      Okay, so arithmetic isn’t her forte either. We already knew honor wasn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Suzy Kiprien says:

    She knows she’s in deep trouble. Blood tests should be interesting.

    Like

  8. jetstream says:

    I must say, this stressful week is ending quite well.

    Like

  9. mimbler says:

    Hard to claim murder for a practice that was SOP for decades prior to the seat belt policy that came out a week or so before the incident. It is demoralizing to me that a judge has not tossed this out already. Obviously, it wasn’t considered depraved and murder for those decades, and indeed even though it is now policy to belt them in, I have read that it is not required if the police feel it is too dangerous. If it were truly depraved and murderous, there of course, could be not exceptions to the policy,
    Mike

    Liked by 1 person

  10. moe2004 says:

    Her case is going to thrown out, and all hell will brake out. The exact opposite of her goal.

    Like

  11. Gary says:

    I’m starting to get the impression her most trusted advisor is a Magic 8 Ball.

    Liked by 11 people

  12. I think it’s clear what’s going on here. She overcharges and make a huge spectacle out of it for political publicity. “Oh I’m the champion of the people” etc. The cops walk with no charges sticking, she cries the system is racist and we need to vote her into a higher office so she can change the system from inside because as prosecutor her arms are tied, etc.

    Liked by 11 people

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Yep. That sounds like a plan.

      Liked by 2 people

    • jackphatz says:

      And cha-ching X 6 for Baltimore, while it’s burning again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TheLastDemocrat says:

      JAH:

      ^ this.

      There are too many genuine cases of police brutality against decent people. Not every encounter – but the 4-5 a year needed for the BGI.

      They pick the bad cases – why?

      So, when it all falls apart, you have the case itself, which a great portion will believe despite reality,

      plus

      a failure of our prevailing “just-us” system, “proving” our justice system is inherently bad.

      Thus, more reason for a bloody revolution against capitalism.

      Liked by 3 people

      • amwick says:

        I think that she focused on this to avoid charging the three black officers and not charging the three white officers. She wanted to be a heri and ended up looking like a court jester.

        Liked by 1 person

      • David says:

        Oh probable cause Mosby dictionary They probably did it ,Cause I said so Donte ( Cigarettes) Allen said he heard them say They gave him at run for his money. Oh with Mosby I only count ,3 generations . Did I miss something or do we have to wait for discovery on that one To allegation that mosby appears disgusted to be be beside fake Sister, she always looks that way

        Like

    • 2x4x8 says:

      there is an opening for Barb Mikulski’s open Senate seat

      Like

  13. jakeandcrew says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/12/marilyn-mosbys-father-was-a-crooked-cop-police-officer-grandfather-sued-for-racial-discrimination/

    Her father was a cop – a very bad one, the criminal kind.
    Her grandfather was a cop – who accused the police department of racial discrimination, and sued them.
    Her uncle was a cop – he also sued the police department for racial discrimination, and won a $200,000+ settlement.

    Although she says this ~

    “As a young child, what I saw was how hard my family worked,” Mosby said in a statement to The Daily Caller. “I have nothing but respect and admiration for all law enforcement officers who make tremendous sacrifices every day to keep our communities safe.”

    Her actions reveal something else. She seems out to get them.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Mr. Right says:

    Every time I hear about the seatbelt in this case, I’m thinking about the million of kids, every single day, ridding in busses to and back from school without seatbelts… because none are available.

    Liked by 12 people

    • The other day I was on an airport bus. Behind me was an adorable child about 5 years old who kept asking his father why he didn’t have a seat belt. The father said he didn’t know. So the child wanted to ask the bus driver. Dad said the driver wouldn’t know. The father handled it very well. Actually the father had wonderful conversations with the child, explaining, describing, and answering the child using big adult words that the child understood. All I could think of is the research that shows inner city children get exposed to only a couple of hundred words by the time they get to school. This child was exposed to tens of thousands.

      Liked by 5 people

    • franker01 says:

      It is kind of silly but there is an explanation – whether believable or not..
      The reasons for not having seat belts in school buses are that the seats themselves are “compartmentalized” and very cushy and do not have the big chrome bars across the top that were undoubtedly responsible for the loss of maybe thousands of front teeth back in the day.
      So the urchins just bounce to and fro and live to ride another day.
      And that seat belts would make egress from a bus in distress more difficult
      I think that is the theory.

      Like

      • art tart says:

        franker01 ~ I worked in the school system, the reason children aren’t strapped in a school bus is beacuse there is one aide on a bus + the Driver. If ALL the children were strapped in & the bus caught fire from an accident, how many kids would burn alive w/only a bus driver & 1 aide unlatching the seat belts & that’s if the Driver & aide weren’t hurt?

        Just like a serious wreck of a school bus in my city years ago, 8 children were hurt, the other 30 walked off the bus.

        Like

    • enuffisenuff says:

      Word.

      Like

  15. Burnt Toast says:

    Not preventing physical harm (failing to secure him in the back of the van) is not the same as causing physical harm.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. archer52 says:

    Won’t fly. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. The PD can suspend them or even fire them. Our General Orders were never there to protect us, but were there to protect the PD FROM us. In this case, it is an administrative error on their part, and one that can be explained away if Gray was fighting them. I’ve transported many combative suspects without seatbelts. No way was I going to reach across them and have them bite my ear or neck or arm.

    She indicted the white officers to balance the case. Everybody knows it, nobody wants to say it. THAT is the danger of political correctness and what Stalin and Mao made a dictatorship out of.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Les says:

      “She indicted the white officers to balance the case.’

      She indicted the white officers because she’s a racist. Everybody who still blames slavery they never experienced as a reason for their own personal and cultural failure is a racist. That’s pure racism, the kind that has no cure.

      Liked by 1 person

    • art tart says:

      archer ~ I trully think Mosby thought she was right about the knife when she included the 3 White Officers, that she based this whole debacle on. imo, she’s found out that the knife in fact was illegal, she is trying to regroup & trying to save face by denying the Defense Attorney’s an opportunity to see the knife wanting a GAG Order to keep the Defense Attorney’s from stating it to the public.

      Mosby’s not going to admit she’s wrong at any cost imo.

      Liked by 1 person

      • manickernel says:

        I also think she believed the knife was legal. Not because of some mistaken interpretation of the relevant code, but because it fit her need to validate her ideology and actions.

        Which is a glaring example of just how unsuitable she is for her position.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          manickernel ~ I too agree w/your thoughts/reasons.. It’s incomprehensible Mosby is so self absorbed she couldn’t predict the fool she would make of herself when being exposed.

          Just like the change of venue, she really thinks the trial will take place in Baltimore & there will be no change of venue. She claims as an argument for her “Gag Order Motion” that it would “pollute potential jurors if not granted a Gag Order.” (paraphrased.) That’s ridiculous because no one from Baltimore will likely sit on her jury.

          Did you watch the Casey Anthony trial? For the change of venue in that case, the jurors were brought in from another county which will likely happen in this case because it’s much cheaper.

          BobNoxious made the point if the “Defense wasn’t granted a change of venue, the Defense could likely appeal & the Judge wouldn’t want that.” (paraphrased.)

          Like

  17. Amy says:

    Sundance,
    You don’t respond to compliments, I know, but you need to know how awesome you are and how much you rock.
    I just know, God forbid if this ever happened, if someone in my family (or friend) was a victim to the BGI industry, I would want you researching the facts.

    Liked by 15 people

    • AghastInFL says:

      Can we sticky this comment so that it appears on every thread? JMHO we should. I have never a greed more with any comment.

      Like

  18. Nation says:

    “Baltimore prosecutors say a request for police training manuals by defense attorneys in the Freddie Gray case is a “fishing expedition” that would be “oppressive” to meet.”

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-gray-subpoena-response-20150612-story.html

    You can’t make this up. What a whacky day in the news.

    Like

  19. nivico says:

    Here’s the relevant section of the previous Baltimore PD Order K-14 covering the use of seat belts during transport that had been in place since 1997:

    “Whenever an arrestee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure: […] The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger.”

    http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf

    So for the better part of the last 20 years, while using a seat belt was advised, it was a discretionary practice that should be decided on a case by case basis.

    We’ve been ~told~ that the policy changed just 9 days before the Gray incident, but Order K-14 is a fairly extensive eleven page document and something tells me that the new policy probably isn’t worded very much differently with regard to the discretionary use of seat belts.

    Wink wink nudge nudge… if anyone has a copy of the new revised policy, we’d surely love to see it 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    • nivico says:

      And as someone aptly pointed out in another thread a few days back, the cramped three compartment design of the transport van itself makes it impracticable to use the provided seat belts from an officer safety perspective.

      Any officer getting into such a close and confined space with an arrestee in order to buckle the arrestee in would be placing himself or herself in danger.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Les says:

      I posted an image of the new policy here somewhere for Art Tart. It’s been a few weeks, not sure if it can be found. They never released the entire policy, it was just a screenshot of the seatbelt portion. I looked online at least twenty times, it’s all I ever found.

      Like

      • Les says:

        But then, I could just google it:

        Like

        • DT says:

          The entire policy is here. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/bal-baltimore-city-policy-for-prisoner-transport-20150511-htmlstory.html Wonder what the non seat belt restraining devices are?

          This article states that most vans in the Baltimore area do not have seat belts. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-seatbelts-police-vans-20150508-story.html#page=1 Baltimore City seems to be the loners in their new policy of requiring belt or restraint usage.

          Liked by 1 person

          • auscitizenmom says:

            So, she wants to hang these guys on a policy that isn’t even used in nearby areas? Pretty weak, I’d say.

            Like

            • DT says:

              The first article I linked has links to other area department policies for comparison.

              Like

            • art tart says:

              auscitizenmom ~ imo, what hangs the mandatory policy in place on the 3 AA Officers is that it was policy for Baltimore at the time Freddy Gray was arrested.

              What other’s do is not relevant imo & isnt a part of this case.

              Like

              • nivico says:

                Mosby has to prove that the officers violated the law, not that they violated workplace policy.

                She has the burden of proving that failure to use a seat belt or restraining device in general is a grossly negligent or criminal deviation from a “reasonable standard of care.”

                If other departments generally do not require that transportees be restrained, it absolutely would be relevant and part of this case because what is considered a “reasonable standard of care” is traditionally established by the profession and not by the individual practitioner.

                Liked by 2 people

                • DT says:

                  For one of the nearby agencies, Anne Arundel, their transportation policy states B.
                  Prisoner Restraint During Transport
                  Prisoners are to be restrained during transport. At a minimum, the prisoner will be * handcuffed*. The handcuffs will
                  be double-locked. The prisoner will be seat belted if the vehicle has seatbelts. Absent any intentional or overt actions

                  by the prisoner, officers will ensure that prisoner restraints do not injure prisoners.

                  Baltimore County excludes belting in wagons
                  PRISON ERS

                  Will be seatbelted in police vehicles.

                  EXCEPTION: Prisoner transport wagons.

                  In reading some of the other policies is where my questioning of clarification of Baltimore City’s definitions upthread arose It seems restraints are used in multiple contexts (handcuffs and/or restraint belts) by departments.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • DT says:

                  I really mangled the quoting of both of those policies. Hopefully it can be muddled through and made sense of.

                  Like

                • art tart says:

                  nivico ~ You are trying to paint with a big brush, that brush is not a legal brush, you make the wrong assumption imo that it matters what others do that transport suspects. Did they have anyone die in their department because a suspect wasn’t seat belted? Exactly what department are you talking about, please list them.

                  They are not likely LE Officers which have “mandatory policy in place” for LE Officers to follow when transporting suspects that was in place the day Freddy Gray got into a transport van. If other departments don’t have a mandatory policy that transportees be restrained, then they wouldn’t be Police Officers in Baltimore, the mandatory policy is clearly spelled out for LE Officers, not what somebody else might do.

                  Mosby has to prove that because mandatory policy wasn’t followed, a death occured. Do you not think she can do that? You know there is video of Gray being placed into the van unrestrained. Then when the van pulled over to put on leg restraints on Gray, Gray again wasn’t restrained. Do you think had Freddy Gray been restrained by a harness he would be alive today? This is where your argument fails. imo, Mosby can prove this.

                  nivico ~ the reason it was made “mandatory policy” was for another death in which the suspect had no restraint, no seat belt & died in the back of a transport van. The LE Policy changed because of injuries for suspects not being restrained/seat belted that caused injuries & the city paid out for those injuries. imo, this won’t hurt the arresting officers, it is the AA Officers that didn’t buckle Gray.

                  Like

                • nivico says:

                  “Mosby has to prove that because mandatory policy wasn’t followed, a death occured.”

                  No.

                  Mosby has to prove that they violated … STATE LAW … period.

                  Here’s one of the actual vehicular manslaughter statutes the officers are being charged with:

                  (c) For purposes of this section, a person acts in a criminally negligent manner with respect to a result or a circumstance when:

                  (1) the person should be aware, but fails to perceive, that the person’s conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such a result will occur; and

                  (2) the failure to perceive constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person.

                  http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=2-210&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

                  Here is an excellent recent legal definition of ‘substantial risk’:

                  A substantial risk of serious harm means that the risk was so great that it was almost certain to materialize if nothing was done. [Miller v. Fisher, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932 (7th Cir. Ill. June 23, 2010)]

                  Liked by 1 person

          • art tart says:

            DT shared: “Wonder what the non seat belt restraining devices are?”

            “oldiadguy” was kind enough to locate pictures of the van w/the restraints inside. I am just a laymen but they appeared to be straps, which Les’ comment w/the policy above explains how they are used.

            Like

            • DT says:

              The grab straps? I wouldn’t consider those restraints as they allow for the prisoner to utilize them or not. To me a restraint device would not be something the prisoner controls.
              I would like to know the City’s definition of a non seat belt restraint device. The wording makes me think there is also an option that is not a seat belt in some vans otherwise the “or restraint device” distinction wouldn’t be mentioned in the policy. I would also like to know if their meaning of that particular restraint is to affix a prisoner in their seat or if it is to restrain their movement.

              Like

              • AghastInFL says:

                No, the standard restraint device is the strap located at seat level which allows for a handcuffed prisoner to achieve a handhold. This is not unique to BPD but is a standard for all such vehicles.
                All vehicles have warnings and pictorial instruction of the strap usage. We spent a lot of time looking into the transports and the restraints previously, the particulars can be found in earlier threads.

                Like

              • Les says:

                That is the sticking point, the “or other authorized restraining device”. I looked for an actual definition from many sources, couldn’t find one. Maybe you could find that?

                Like

                • art tart says:

                  Les ~ you didn’t see the restraints “oldiadguy” showed us at the beginning of the case from transport vans?

                  Think about it. I think we can agree that the 6 Officers have good attorneys. The Defense Attorney’s have never claimed the transport van didn’t have proper restraints for Gray. The Defense Attorney’s haven’t even claimed it “wasn’t mandatory policy” that supects were to be restrained for their safety.

                  The Defense Attorney’s want information “on the training the Officers recieved about the restraints.” The point: The Denfense wants to know how much the Officers understood about the restraining/seat belting even though it was in the policy you shared & explained. Mosby has called it a “fishing expedition,” which of course it certainly isn’t.

                  Like

                • DT says:

                  I will keep my eyes peeled. I don’t think the grab straps are considered authorized because the new policy specifically states it must go around the waist or chest area.

                  Like

                • AghastInFL says:

                  Where they are available, as Les has pointed out multiple times the same regulation you quote from states “or other authorized restraining device.”
                  That seems to leave a lot of wiggle room for interpretation IMO.

                  Like

              • art tart says:

                DT ~ You didn’t go back & read Les’ information, the second number explains HOW they are restrained & aren’t able to hurt themselves..

                Like

          • Les says:

            Thank you! I swear I looked for that for several hours a month or so ago and could NOT find it.

            Like

      • art tart says:

        Les ~ KUDSO again for your research, you cleared up a lot for us.

        Like

        • Les says:

          I’m afraid it just raises more questions.

          Whatever the outcome, it will just cost taxpayers more to make sure criminals (who have no regard for the taxpayers or their welfare) get a cushy ride to jail. It’s just a dirty business all the way ’round. We can’t win.

          Like

    • janc1955 says:

      If I was a betting gal, I’d bet nowhere in the new revised policy does it require LEOs to put themselves in personal danger attempting to put a seatbelt on a combative, insane, drunk and/or drug addled arrestee.

      Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        That is the over-arching policy of all departments and what officer training is designed to accomplish. In fact, officers can and are reprimanded for taking unnecessary chances that can cause injuries or for jeopardizing their own safety.

        Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Hmmm. Doesn’t that cover most of them?

        Like

  20. emet says:

    I know she does not know the word “instrumentality”. DOJ must be writing thid

    Like

  21. rsmith1776 says:

    Among the two disgusting photos it is hard to decide which smile is faker, by comparison the proverbial 3.5 dollar bill is sheer gold, guaranteed in Japanese sashimi stock!

    Like

  22. rsmith1776 says:

    “the van acted as an “instrumentality” of each of them and “made harmful contact” with Gray”

    Fred Sanford’s answer to the allegation:

    Liked by 1 person

  23. truthseekerr says:

    but what about the knife? was it just a folding knife like she says?

    Like

  24. True Colors says:

    It appears that the prosecutor’s legal theory is this:

    The pollice have no explanation for how Freddie Gray died, so therefore, they are guilty.

    However, it doesn’t work that way. The burden is squarely on the prosecution to explain how Greddie Gray died.

    In the case of Michael Brown, Dr Baden told us that the cause of death was one specific bullet was the fatal one.

    In the case of Freddie Gray, we have yet to hear anything. Is there any physical evidence which shows that Gray had an extreme collision inside the van which caused his spine to snap? Any cracked skull, or blood inside the van, or anything?

    Hey Mosby, lets see the autopsy.

    TC

    Liked by 1 person

  25. bertdilbert says:

    Liked by 15 people

  26. True Colors says:

    The Baltimore police will be able to show statisics that thousands of criminals have ridden in police vans without wearing seat belts but not a single one of them ever suffered a freddie gray style injury.

    The statistical evidence will obliterate Mosby’s stance that the seat belt was left off as a tactic by the police meant to intentionally harm Freddie Gray. And Mosby desparately needs to prove that element of intent. Without it, Mosby’s case against the cops collapses all the more.

    TC

    Liked by 2 people

    • boutis says:

      And she threw away her own and the city of Baltimore’s immunity by “investigating” it herself instead of the police department. This is a major tenet of US jurisprudence and she is too ignorant to know it. She is too dumb to protect herself. No wonder she had to have her own lawyer last year even if he isn’t a very good one.

      Like

    • art tart says:

      True Colors ~ Though I agree w/your comment on stats on safely transported suspects, Mosby can show the injuries sustained of other suspects, & the death of a prisoner from a nickel ride, hence, the Policy was changed.

      I listed this upthread, but if you didn’t see it:

      ‘Baltimore police rides scrutinized after man’s death’

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/freddie-gray-death-baltimore-police-transport-rides/

      Like

  27. Noticer says:

    Marilyn Mosby and Rachel Dolezal are both despicable, but Mosby is definitely black. She’s got a lot of cream in her coffee, which makes her smart enough to be a nuisance.

    Dolezal’s just cashing in on blacks’ legally privileged status in post-Constitutional America.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 2x4x8 says:

      everyone is jumpin’ on board for the free ride ……… police van exclusion

      Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      What’s comical is that blacks defend Dolezal who got a free ride on their skin color for college, jobs, etc., all her adult life.

      A finer example of the die-hard plantation mentality does not exist.

      I guess there’s no such thing as white privilege if you just check a different box. See how easy it is to prove the whole “white privilege” meme is BS?

      Like

  28. Sniffy Pop says:

    IMO this case will fall apart. Think it has been designed from the beginning to fail. The powers to be are doing everything in their power to divide us.

    Baltimore will roast when the Officers walk.

    Like

  29. aprilyn43 says:

    And when Mosby loses the case, due to lack of evidence, Baltimore will burn again; and Mosby will probably allow those who wish to destroy the ability to do so …. And then blame it on the police and white racism!

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      Mosby’s plight will get even worse when the white cops ask for separate trials and testify and present police department supervisory testimony and official documents establishing that the black cops were solely responsible for securing Freddie in the van, driving the van and summoning medical assistance.

      Liked by 2 people

  30. jackphatz says:

    Rawlings- Blake created an atmosphere of chaos she (the City of Baltimore) could not escape from with her “space to destroy” comment. Mosby was given the task of appeasing the destructive masses. Neither have progressed emotionally beyond the 5th grade so now Baltimore will suffer dramatically for many years with this level of incompetence. I even doubt they, being female, will be Nifong’d.

    Like

    • David says:

      And we have Miss Room to. Destroy, Miss I heard you and it’s our time and:-) Chief Batts ,who seems caught in the middle and the only one with half a bit of sense. LETS guess when the feces hits the circular rotating air distributor Who will be the fall guy.Hint it’s a fall GUY

      Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      Let Baltimore suffer, let it burn to the ground. These big, dead, blue cities are just petri dishes for the bacteria of most of our social ills. They are the centers of bad municipal governments, high taxes, leftwing social experiments, the financial drowning of the middle class, the carcasses of hollowed-out industry, the acceptance of anti-social behaviors killing our traditions and morals, the rot of the entertainment industry, the arenas of glorification of violent sports “role models”, and all the rest of what ails our quality of life no matter where you live. They can burn every one of them to the ground tomorrow and it would be the best thing to happen to this country in thirty years.

      Like

  31. waltherppk says:

    The somewhat abstract “reasonable person test” should get a good workout for this case.

    Like

    • Kitty Smith says:

      The “reasonable person test” has already left the room. This is the part where Chairman Mao enters and condemns the accused to hard labor in re-education camps by declaring them guilty of what the machine must have them be guilty of in order to demonstrate the machine’s power over them through these ongoing indoctrination lessons.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. georgiafl says:

    Baltimore government and law enforcement are a moral and legal disaster zone…but this is what you get with Democrat-run cities.

    Like

    • georgiafl says:

      …and states. Just look at California.

      Like

      • Les says:

        My home county in California: 8th Senate District, represented by Republican Tom Berryhill and the 26th Assembly District, represented by Republican Devon Mathis and California’s 8th congressional district, represented by Republican Paul Cook. (I know Cali is ate up, but it is also home to a strong Tea Party movement and some real cowboys.)

        Liked by 1 person

    • georgiafl says:

      Actually, all of Baltimore is a moral disaster – case in point: http://therightscoop.com/baltimore-16-year-old-girl-raped-killed-and-set-on-fire-two-suspects-charged/

      Obama/Holder’s people.

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        These two guys were supposed to be her “friends.” With friends like these you definitely don’t need enemies.

        Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        Black-on-black crime, so black lives don’t matter. If they did, the girl wouldn’t be living with just a working grandma, somebody would know she was hanging with the wrong element, she’d be alive and the two killers would have been kept in jail for whatever their last crime was, which they probably committed as soon as they could crawl.

        Where were the girl’s parents? Why wasn’t she being supervised? Are they in jail? Rehab?

        Like

  33. Her incompetence and racially driven persecution of these officers is going to be exposed for all the world to see. She chose the wrong case for what she hoped to accomplish. Obviously, she’s just been waiting for an opportunity to make a name for herself and become a hero to the #BlackLivesMatter crowd. I can’t wait to see the epic fail coming down the pipe. I’m saddened that it will come at the expense of these poor officers.

    As to that picture – it appears to me that she finds Ms. Dolezal’s presence next to her distasteful. She’s not fooled by the sister. Look at that wrinkled up nose and her body language. I can’t stand to even look at Mosby. She sickens me.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. Rodney Plonker says:

    Take a look at the twitter account https://twitter.com/baltimoresao Similarly like her Circus gig, lots speeches, ceremonies, awards that have nothing to do with her day job. Clearly aimed at higher office.

    Stephenie Hyphen was her early target which she already attacked after she dismissed charges for curfew breakers on the grounds that the Mayor didn’t have authority to declare the curfew. I don’t think she’d want the Mayoral job : It’s Hubby’s.

    Like

  35. saywhat64 says:

    Do seat belts even exists in the “paddy wagon” ? And if so, is it standard procedure to make sure occupants are belted in ?

    Liked by 1 person

  36. wizzum says:

    was the second occupant belted in? If not did he have any injuries?
    If it was a case of depraved heart murder with intent, why was only one prisoner killed?

    Like

  37. czarowniczy says:

    This feels like a setup for a civil suit against the officers and the city. The parties accused of causing the damage do not have to be 100% guilty of causing that injury, 1% liable is right there with the 99% liable – in for a penny, in for a pound, The mayor just seems to be handing the Gray team the ammunition they need to go for a giant payday.

    Like

  38. art tart says:

    czarowniczy ~ There was always going to be a Civil Suit by the family even if the Officers were never charged. Batt’s took responsibility for the City when claiming “No suspect should be transported without seatbelts/restraints as mandatory policy dictates, (paraphrased,) & Gray should have recieved medical care before he arrived at the final destination.”

    The Civil Suit, imo, is not a big deal. With a Cap of only $ 200,000.00 for a Civil Suit against the City/Officers, I’d be surprised if the family just wasn’t handed a check. When City Officials admit negligence, a suspect dies, it’s hardly worth the CIty even paying an attorney to object imo since it isn’t winnable.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. DT says:

    I can’t reply to the Aghast’s comment (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/12/mosby-relies-on-lack-of-seatbelt-and-van-within-probable-cause-outline-bill-of-particulars-but-doesnt-cite-individual-officers/comment-page-1/#comment-1469717) above so I will reply here. I think I may have found the one Baltimore area transport van with seatbelts. 😛 This van matchess the style and trim of van FG was transported in.
    https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2012/12/15/in-wake-of-connecticut-shooting-449-firearms-surrendered-in-city-today/ It looks like there are raised bolt heads along the interior divider panel. I would assume that style of seam would be the same on either side of the divider. The silver square head screws elsewhere appear to be countersunk and lie flush. If the bolt on the divider panel caused his head injury, that poses some interesting questions about his positioning in the van. Especially depending on where the injury to his head is.

    Liked by 2 people

    • AghastInFL says:

      Can’t argue with that, that’s from 2012 and matches in every way, it could well be the same vehicle used in Freddie’s conveyance. Well done.

      Like

    • AghastInFL says:

      Note the forward bulkhead, there appear to be several “acorn nuts” I would tend toward those being the matching bolt heads, rather than the divider wall. JMHO FWIW.

      Like

  40. nivico says:

    “Mosby has to prove that because mandatory policy wasn’t followed, a death occured.” – Art Tart

    No.

    Mosby has to prove that they violated … STATE LAW … period.

    Here’s one of the actual vehicular manslaughter statutes the officers are being charged with:

    (c) For purposes of this section, a person acts in a criminally negligent manner with respect to a result or a circumstance when:

    (1) the person should be aware, but fails to perceive, that the person’s conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such a result will occur; and

    (2) the failure to perceive constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person.

    http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=2-210&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

    Here is an excellent recent legal definition of ‘substantial risk’:

    A substantial risk of serious harm means that the risk was so great that it was almost certain to materialize if nothing was done. [Miller v. Fisher, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932 (7th Cir. Ill. June 23, 2010)]

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s