Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
+1 on the van's route and timeline. It makes no sense whatsoever.
To be fair, the $4k contribution was made long before Freddy died and before his family retained Murphy. If we say there is a conflict of interest here, a defense lawyer could NEVER make a contribution to a prosecutor candidate, since it would mean that it could potentially come back to disqualify him from a lucrative case much later.
I am certain that the prosecutor is not going to let the $4k contribution sway her decision - what would be on her mind is the peer pressure she would face as an African-American woman.
Mick
Just a correction - it was 5k, not 4k. Small detail, but details and facts are all that matter. Because the contribution came before the Gray case, the attorneys for the police officers can and WILL suggest that convictions could be part of a payback system between Mosby and the law firm. Not saying at all that this is the case, but it will create a huge legal cluster come discovery and trial time.
you conveniently left out the part of my post where I was rebutting Waldokitty's claim that the State Attorney filed charges due to a $4,000 campaign contribution by the attorney representing Gray's family. My point was to illustrate how some of us choose when to ignore the influence of donations/contributions but jump on the same thing when they feel it supports their case, but I am sure you knew that and just wanted to look clever here
Then leave at at that and keep your lame "Koch Brothers" straw man out of it.
Well you've been rather prolific when it comes to alibis, excuses, motives, alternate scenarios, and general comments regarding the inexplicable innocence of the Baltimore City Police in this case. So I would find it out of character that you wouldn't be able to come up with an explanation for these missing periods of time in the narrative offered by the officers directly involved. That is why I asked.
Well you've been rather prolific when it comes to alibis, excuses, motives, alternate scenarios, and general comments regarding the inexplicable innocents of the Baltimore City Police in this case so I would find it out of character that you wouldn't be able to come up with an explanation for these missing period of time in the narrative offered by the officers directly involved.
..... My point was to illustrate how some of us choose when to ignore the influence of donations/contributions but jump on the same thing when they feel it supports their case, but I am sure you knew that and just wanted to look clever here
If you are referring to me, I have not done this. As I said in the other topic, if you have a logic argument then there is no need to use tactic of personal attack and insult.
This will all come out at trial but I'm guessing the homicide ruling was largely due to him not being belted in as per policy.
Here's one possible rub with this theory which is that said policy was reportedly only in effect for a couple of days prior to this incident AND the rank/file were not fully informed of this change.
Look for lots of twist and turns as this hits the courts but for now the masses should be mollified.
wrong..the policy enacted on April 3 was an update to a 1997 policy that required securing prisoners during transport.
In the 80's an agency I was employed at had a prisoner transport van with benches that ran along the sides, at appx. 2' intervals there were eye hooks welded to the wall of the van with shackles on a short chain welded to the hooks to ensure that prisoners were secured to the seat during transport. When a new Chief was hired he replaced those eye hooks with seatbelts citing concern about the difficulty in getting inmates out of the van in the case of a serious accident. I can't imagine any medium to large size agency not having a policy in place that would deal with that, everyone knew what "van therapy" meant and LE Administrators did everything they could to prevent it from happening.
The jury will decide based on facts, not speculation, and hopefully not emotion and/or fear of nationwide rioting if they rule in the cop's favor.
In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution had absolutely no case. I watched the entire trial play out on the screen. NO case against him at all. It was laughable that this man was brought to trail to begin with. The jury ruled properly. But freakin nobody cares about the facts and evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
