Charges reduced against violent mob who attacked tourist (Baltimore, Rosedale: crime, attorneys)

[CtownKeith]

Baltimore videotaped beating case cuts charges - baltimoresun.com

SHOCK! Yes lets sweep this right under the rug and ignore the fact that it was a hate crime, just imagine if the races were reversed !

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by CtownKeith

Baltimore videotaped beating case cuts charges - baltimoresun.com

SHOCK! Yes lets sweep this right under the rug and ignore the fact that it was a hate crime, just imagine if the races were reversed !

But the city state’s attorneys’ office has since dropped those charges and whittled many others over the past three weeks. In all, 13 out of 24 charges have been removed.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision, but you make seem like they aren't still being punished.

Parsons, a party promoter from Rosedale, was originally charged with eight crimes in the incident, but three of them have been cut, including the first-degree assault, conspiracy to commit first-degree assault and reckless endangerment. Remaining are robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, second-degree assault, conspiracy to commit second-degree assault and theft charges.

Davis, who lives in Baltimore, is now charged only with second-degree assault, after first-degree assault, robbery and armed robbery charges were dropped.

Baldwin, of Brooklyn, is now charged with robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, theft and second-degree assault, after four other charges were dropped: first-degree assault, reckless endangerment, conspiracy to commit first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit second-degree assault.

A single charge of second-degree assault remains against Carter, who lives in Baltimore. Prosecutors declined to pursue armed robbery, robbery, and first-degree assault charges.

I can understand why they dropped the first-degree assault for them because it's pretty difficult to prove that they were out looking to assault someone they didn't know. Seemed more like a crime of opportunity than something that was planned out in advance.

Reckless endangerment is another one that I believe is tough to prove here. All they were did was punch him and kick him. Can you really say they were trying to kill him or seriously injure him? The argument definitely can be made, but can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, not sure you can.

[mrboltonman]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

Reckless endangerment is another one that I believe is tough to prove here. All they were did was punch him and kick him. Can you really say they were trying to kill him or seriously injure him? The argument definitely can be made, but can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, not sure you can.

From this definition,

https://www.google.com/search?q=Reck...w=1280&bih=898

I don't think the charges should be dropped.

[GunsMass]

If they are tried and sentenced for robbery and 2nd-degree assault I'll feel justice is served.

[P47P47]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

Reckless endangerment is another one that I believe is tough to prove here. All they were did was punch him and kick him. Can you really say they were trying to kill him or seriously injure him? The argument definitely can be made, but can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, not sure you can.

ALL they did was punch and kick him? I'd say that's a pretty good indication of an attempt to seriously injure someone.


And in court, a charge only need be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt (even if the jurors ARE all Tom Petty fans).

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by P47P47

ALL they did was punch and kick him? I'd say that's a pretty good indication of an attempt to seriously injure someone.


And in court, a charge only need be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt (even if the jurors ARE all Tom Petty fans).

BUT, the argument can be made that he came up and a threatening manner looking for a fight. I'm not saying that they weren't trying to seriously hurt him, it's just you can't really prove it. I would rather see them get some charges then no charges at all. This could easily be thrown out if you try to overcharge.

[CtownKeith]

If this goes to a jury forget it they will all get off. Black jurors won't care about a white boy being assualted/robbed by their kin folk. There is plenty of precedent for that.

[Gil3]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

BUT, the argument can be made that he came up and a threatening manner looking for a fight. I'm not saying that they weren't trying to seriously hurt him, it's just you can't really prove it. I would rather see them get some charges then no charges at all. This could easily be thrown out if you try to overcharge.

Exactly

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by CtownKeith

If this goes to a jury forget it they will all get off. Black jurors won't care about a white boy being assualted/robbed by their kin folk. There is plenty of precedent for that.

That's a pretty broad assumption don't you think. As if all black people are the same

[CtownKeith]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

That's a pretty broad assumption don't you think. As if all black people are the same

NO of course they are not. But facts are facts dont ask me to get into a deep explanation as to why - the twns who set a dog on fire got off with a mostly black jury and the black who ran down two teenaged girls got off with a mostly black jury as well. Just two recent examples - what am I supposed to take away from those incidents ?