ADVERTISEMENT

Baltimore State's Attorney: 'We Have Probable Cause To File Criminal Charges' Over Freddie Gray's De

Status
Not open for further replies.
rifraf said:
No one is alleging a conspiracy - not sure where are getting that from. Two of the three bike officers that originally arrested Gray are charged with assault and improper arrest. The third is also charged with man slaughter (not sure why his charge is different - maybe failure to secure Gray in the van). The basis is an illegal stop and no illegal knife as reported. Separately two additional officers who interacted with Gray/van are charged with manslaughter plus other charges for failing to aid Gray despite his request for help and being in obvious distress. The most significant charge was for the van driver who was charged with depraved indifference murder because he did not provide aid to Gray despite his obvious distress. Clearly there is a lot of additional facts to be determined at trial but your assertion that Gray's death is either a series of non criminal screw-ups or a conspiracy is nuts. The determination is whether those screw-ups by the individual actions of six officers are criminal. The prosecutor believes the officers actions were criminal and we will see what a jury thinks. A healthy man who committed no crime is dead when in the care and custody of police. (And btw, running from the police is not a crime but it can be probable cause. Since the charge reported by the bike officers was false, knife was not illegal, those officers were charged with assault and illegal arrest.)
Click to expand...

Fleeing from a lawful police stop is a crime. I don't know exactly how the stop unfolded and that's why I said that I don't know if the running away was a crime.

The knife situation is interesting. Maryland has a relatively complicated set of laws around what knives are legal for open carry, concealed carry, or just illegal. I suspect the cops are going to argue that the knife was in fact illegal, or in the alternative, they are immune to prosecution. It's a problem to be prosecuting police for making arrests that the prosecutor later determines not to charge, unless the arrest was truly made in bad faith.
 
Pardlion said:
Fleeing from a lawful police stop is a crime. I don't know exactly how the stop unfolded and that's why I said that I don't know if the running away was a crime.

The knife situation is interesting. Maryland has a relatively complicated set of laws around what knives are legal for open carry, concealed carry, or just illegal. I suspect the cops are going to argue that the knife was in fact illegal, or in the alternative, they are immune to prosecution. It's a problem to be prosecuting police for making arrests that the prosecutor later determines not to charge, unless the arrest was truly made in bad faith.
Click to expand...
It is not alleged that he fled a lawful police stop. It is alleged that he started running and they started chasing him. Then he surrendered after a bit. No evidence that they were trying to stop him before he started running.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBrown
Ten Thousan Marbles said:
It is not alleged that he fled a lawful police stop. It is alleged that he started running and they started chasing him. Then he surrendered after bit. No evidence that they were trying to stop him before he started running.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. That is why the original police report did not charge Gray for resisting arrest, only for possession of an illegal weapon which the police determined after they had him in custody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
Ten Thousan Marbles said:
It is not alleged that he fled a lawful police stop. It is alleged that he started running and they started chasing him. Then he surrendered after a bit. No evidence that they were trying to stop him before he started running.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what's alleged by the prosecutor. But you can expect to hear that they told him to stop and he didn't, or that there was a scuffle after the police caught him. The knife charge won't be the last word.

Everyone knows that if you take off running at the sight of the police, and they catch you in a scuffle, you're going in to the station.
 
Demlion,

In the first (quoted) and nearly every instance of my referring to "animals" it is qualified as being defined by their actions. I do not believe civilized humans react to any perceived injustice by burning their own city, attacking cops, looting, and destroying and taking from their neighbors. That is not rational behavior for human beings. Call it what you wish or continue to deny and ignore the behavior as you seek to rationalize it, but it is not rational civilized human behavior.

I have also said in this thread that people who use unnecessary force are animals (like ISIS or if proven in the court of law, a cop who even unintentionally kills someone in custody).

I have also said that people who exploit the people who have been harmed by this tragedy for political gain are animals. You sir fall into this category because you don't give a flying f#$% about these people, you just want them voting democrat, dependent on government, and emotionally charged. I would love for you to want to help them but doing so means that you must hold them accountable to live like civilized humans and respect their neighbors and their property and our rule of law.

So don't pretend that you are arguing for anything other than your puppet masters as you tacitly approve of heinous crimes on your own neighbors as long as it is not on your street. And don't disingenuously call me a racist when I am suggesting the very thing that is needed to help the people of Baltimore have a better future for themselves. You certainly live up to the distrust people have in your profession because you would argue for the devil if you stand to benefit from it.

Can you for once admit that the arson, the assaults, the looting is wrong and counterproductive? It is not and never will be justified no matter what is proven eventually when these officers have their day in court. That is the central point of this entire argument.

psufan9808 said:
Marbles,

You can dismiss it if you like because it does not fit your agenda, but the big picture is that a potential injustice which has yet to be examined fully DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL JUSTIFY BURNING AND LOOTING YOUR OWN CITY. Further, even if in a court of law the injustice is proven (too little information for us to know at this point), it doesn't justify the crimes that your team seems to want to rationalize. The animals (as defined by their actions) are not acting rationally.

For political purposes, the tragedy, the victim's family, and a race and a class of people are being exploited and our rule of law is being undermined. Congratulations! You are hurting this Country and the people for which you claim empathy superficially.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU-Knocker
psufan9808 said:
Demlion,

In the first (quoted) and nearly every instance of my referring to "animals" it is qualified as being defined by their actions. I do not believe civilized humans react to any perceived injustice by burning their own city, attacking cops, looting, and destroying and taking from their neighbors. That is not rational behavior for human beings. Call it what you wish or continue to deny and ignore the behavior as you seek to rationalize it, but it is not rational civilized human behavior.

I have also said in this thread that people who use unnecessary force are animals (like ISIS or if proven in the court of law, a cop who even unintentionally kills someone in custody).

I have also said that people who exploit the people who have been harmed by this tragedy for political gain are animals. You sir fall into this category because you don't give a flying f#$% about these people, you just want them voting democrat, dependent on government, and emotionally charged. I would love for you to want to help them but doing so means that you must hold them accountable to live like civilized humans and respect their neighbors and their property and our rule of law.

So don't pretend that you are arguing for anything other than your puppet masters as you tacitly approve of heinous crimes on your own neighbors as long as it is not on your street. And don't disingenuously call me a racist when I am suggesting the very thing that is needed to help the people of Baltimore have a better future for themselves. You certainly live up to the distrust people have in your profession because you would argue for the devil if you stand to benefit from it.

Can you for once admit that the arson, the assaults, the looting is wrong and counterproductive? It is not and never will be justified no matter what is proven eventually when these officers have their day in court. That is the central point of this entire argument.
Click to expand...

I have called this wrong from the day I heard about it. The fact is that you called the black rioters animals, but not the cops. The rioters killed nobody. The use of the term to apply to racial minorities is a racist code and you know it.

You know, I never saw people so upset about cars and property. In a LOT of countries they would not have burned cars--they would have simply started executing cops. Some of that has already happened in NYC. Careful what you wish for.
 
Demlion,

I am done speaking to you with this response. You are a disingenuous, lying, race-baiting piece of shit lawyer who refuses to discuss the central issue of this matter which is a massive irrational lawless response egged on by liberal political figures and their mindless minions.

Again, I used animals from the beginning while stating over and over for thick headed liars that it is defined by their actions not by their race as you have introduced and insisted. In fact (see my quote below from page 3, not "fact" as you stated above which you know to be an intentionally dishonest slander), I have said that 3 groups in this tragedy qualify as animals because of their inhumane behavior.

"The answer is actually all 3. If you 1) use excessive force because you can (not proven in this case although it may be when all evidence is thoroughly examined); or if you 2) react to a perceived injustice with mass violence and lawlessness (evidence is substantial); or if you 3) stoke the flames of violence, undermine the rule of law, and exploit this tragedy and the people associated with it for political gain, then you are an animal."

So this is my last response to you knowing now with reasonable certainty that you are a horrible person who intentionally misleads and misquotes and has no desire whatsoever to help the people affected most by this tragedy. You seek only to extract whatever small benefit you and your political allies can from Baltimore's plight. Further, I would guess that this is indicative of how you live your life and who you have become as a person. I believe there is a strong possibility that you have sold your soul and will rot in hell. Good people should no longer acknowledge you.
 
rifraf said:
Thanks for clarifying. That is why the original police report did not charge Gray for resisting arrest, only for possession of an illegal weapon which the police determined after they had him in custody.
Click to expand...
Just a thought and I'm not sure how this works in that county or state. With his pasts arrests could it be a possible parole violation to have any type of thing on him that could be considered a weapon?
 
psufan9808 said:
Demlion,

I am done speaking to you with this response. You are a disingenuous, lying, race-baiting piece of shit lawyer who refuses to discuss the central issue of this matter which is a massive irrational lawless response egged on by liberal political figures and their mindless minions.

Again, I used animals from the beginning while stating over and over for thick headed liars that it is defined by their actions not by their race as you have introduced and insisted. In fact (see my quote below from page 3, not "fact" as you stated above which you know to be an intentionally dishonest slander), I have said that 3 groups in this tragedy qualify as animals because of their inhumane behavior.

"The answer is actually all 3. If you 1) use excessive force because you can (not proven in this case although it may be when all evidence is thoroughly examined); or if you 2) react to a perceived injustice with mass violence and lawlessness (evidence is substantial); or if you 3) stoke the flames of violence, undermine the rule of law, and exploit this tragedy and the people associated with it for political gain, then you are an animal."

So this is my last response to you knowing now with reasonable certainty that you are a horrible person who intentionally misleads and misquotes and has no desire whatsoever to help the people affected most by this tragedy. You seek only to extract whatever small benefit you and your political allies can from Baltimore's plight. Further, I would guess that this is indicative of how you live your life and who you have become as a person. I believe there is a strong possibility that you have sold your soul and will rot in hell. Good people should no longer acknowledge you.
Click to expand...
psufan9808 said:
Demlion,

I am done speaking to you with this response. You are a disingenuous, lying, race-baiting piece of shit lawyer who refuses to discuss the central issue of this matter which is a massive irrational lawless response egged on by liberal political figures and their mindless minions.

Again, I used animals from the beginning while stating over and over for thick headed liars that it is defined by their actions not by their race as you have introduced and insisted. In fact (see my quote below from page 3, not "fact" as you stated above which you know to be an intentionally dishonest slander), I have said that 3 groups in this tragedy qualify as animals because of their inhumane behavior.

"The answer is actually all 3. If you 1) use excessive force because you can (not proven in this case although it may be when all evidence is thoroughly examined); or if you 2) react to a perceived injustice with mass violence and lawlessness (evidence is substantial); or if you 3) stoke the flames of violence, undermine the rule of law, and exploit this tragedy and the people associated with it for political gain, then you are an animal."

So this is my last response to you knowing now with reasonable certainty that you are a horrible person who intentionally misleads and misquotes and has no desire whatsoever to help the people affected most by this tragedy. You seek only to extract whatever small benefit you and your political allies can from Baltimore's plight. Further, I would guess that this is indicative of how you live your life and who you have become as a person. I believe there is a strong possibility that you have sold your soul and will rot in hell. Good people should no longer acknowledge you.
Click to expand...

I like how you announce to the world that you are done with this--like somebody is going to give a damn that your misinformed, racist commentary is no longer available as a touchstone for their lives. The fact is that in your initial characterization of the rioters as animals you had one category, not three. The fact is that you had the facts wrong and the fact is that burning cars upsets you more than a dead suspect.

So I could not care less what you do or don't do, or what you think of me. You go on and on about how I am not interested in "helping" the "people" most affected by the tragedy--do you mean the same "people" you called "animals?" (BTW, it appears the good people of Baltimore, the vast majority of whom destroyed nothing and looted nothing, are fixing up their own neighborhoods. They are helping themselves! I always thought that conservative hosebags like yourself saw that as a good thing--but I guess not when they are animals, right?)

In the course of getting all worked up over this in your little racist frenzy, you even conclude that I have sold my soul and will rot in hell. HAA! Now go back and edit and delete you posts to make it seems like you did not say the things you said, and leave only the corrected version. Maybe you can fool some folks that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
People judge for themselves and I have no need to correct anything. My posts in this thread will remain as they currently are. I have nothing to hide. My only previous edits at any point were mis-typed words and those edits occurred within a very short time of the OP as I proof-read what I type.

I did use the word animal to describe inhumane actions in Baltimore and when team liberal asked to whom that referred, I immediately answered with the 3 categories that I believe to have acted inhumanely. Team liberal's assumption of racism is a reflection of their beliefs not mine, as I did not bring up race or at any point even hint at race. You own those comments.

The sad thing for some here is that they will be judged someday not by man and no amount of mis-information will deceive on that day. Those people know who they are.
 
psufan9808 said:
Demlion,

I am done speaking to you with this response. You are a disingenuous, lying, race-baiting piece of shit lawyer who refuses to discuss the central issue of this matter which is a massive irrational lawless response egged on by liberal political figures and their mindless minions.
Click to expand...

The "central issue" is the killing of an unarmed person in police custody. If you think otherwise, you are part of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
My question is: why did the prosecutor state that the arrest was unlawful because the knife was legal under Maryland law, when, in fact, Gray's arrest was premised on a violation of a Baltimore City (county?) ordinance? Why didn't she say that the kife was legal under Baltimore law, which was the law under which Gray was arrested? Uh oh.
 
Pardlion said:
My question is: why did the prosecutor state that the arrest was unlawful because the knife was legal under Maryland law, when, in fact, Gray's arrest was premised on a violation of a Baltimore City (county?) ordinance? Why didn't she say that the kife was legal under Baltimore law, which was the law under which Gray was arrested? Uh oh.
Click to expand...
WTF are you going on about now? The cops killed a guy, in case that has escaped your attention.

Is there something about this prosecutor that makes you believe this prosecutor cannot put together a proper bill of charges? I wonder what that could be. It's on the tip of my tongue.........
 
Last edited:
Ten Thousan Marbles said:
WTF are you going on about now? The cops killed a guy, in case that has escaped your attention.

Is there something about this prosecutor that makes you believe this prosecutor cannot put together a proper bill of charges? I wonder what that could be. It's on the tip of my tongue.........
Click to expand...

It's because she is a probably a Terrapin fan and therefore incapable of putting together a proper bill of charges. I cannot think of any other reason.
 
Pardlion said:
My question is: why did the prosecutor state that the arrest was unlawful because the knife was legal under Maryland law, when, in fact, Gray's arrest was premised on a violation of a Baltimore City (county?) ordinance? Why didn't she say that the kife was legal under Baltimore law, which was the law under which Gray was arrested? Uh oh.
Click to expand...
The cops in their charging documents on Gray said the knife was a switchblade. Apparently it wasn't a switchblade, which are illegal in Maryland. Now, if somehow the knife was illegal in Baltimore and legal in the rest of Maryland (I'm just playing along with you, I don't see this happening at all), then don't you think that they'd have mentioned that, and not that it was a switchblade, which, again, it apparently wasn't?
 
LionJim said:
The cops in their charging documents on Gray said the knife was a switchblade. Apparently it wasn't a switchblade, which are illegal in Maryland. Now, if somehow the knife was illegal in Baltimore and legal in the rest of Maryland (I'm just playing along with you, I don't see this happening at all), then don't you think that they'd have mentioned that, and not that it was a switchblade, which, again, it apparently wasn't?
Click to expand...

The cops said that the knife had a spring mechanism and asserted a violation of Baltimore ordinance. The Baltimore ordinance says that spring-assisted knives are illegal.

On the other hand, the Maryland law, which the prosecutor for some reason decided to cite instead of the Baltimore ordinance, makes switchblades illegal.

Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?
 
Pardlion said:
The cops said that the knife had a spring mechanism and asserted a violation of Baltimore ordinance. The Baltimore ordinance says that spring-assisted knives are illegal.

On the other hand, the Maryland law, which the prosecutor for some reason decided to cite instead of the Baltimore ordinance, makes switchblades illegal.

Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with causing the mortal injuries of a man who was in their custody? Can you not see that every one of your posts is devaluing the human life that was lost here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Ten Thousan Marbles said:
What does that have to do with causing the mortal injuries of a man who was in their custody? Can you not see that every one of your posts is devaluing the human life that was lost here?
Click to expand...

It's because for some people, the loss of brick and mortar is more important than the loss of another black life. These people are not racist - they are simply ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simons96
Ten Thousan Marbles said:
What does that have to do with causing the mortal injuries of a man who was in their custody? Can you not see that every one of your posts is devaluing the human life that was lost here?
Click to expand...

Nothing, because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the issue of whether the prosecutor has probable cause to have filed false arrest charge. That's the title of the thread. If you want to talk about something else, start a different thread.
 
psuro said:
It's because for some people, the loss of brick and mortar is more important than the loss of another black life. These people are not racist - they are simply ignorant.
Click to expand...

Some people are interested in the issue of politicized prosecutions. Other people are simpletons.
 
Pardlion said:
Nothing, because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the issue of whether the prosecutor has probable cause to have filed false arrest charge. That's the title of the thread. If you want to talk about something else, start a different thread.
Click to expand...

You must be new here. Our threads zig zag more than a drunk 19 year old on College Avenue on a Saturday night.
 
"Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?"

There is (at least) a third possibility: Dillon's Rule. This would limit any city ordinance to just the same sort of sweep the prevailing state law has, and no more. Thus if the rule in Maryland were your gun could hold no more than 6 bullets, and Baltimore passed a seemingly conflicting ordinance limiting you to 4 bullets, the STATE law would govern everywhere in the state, and to the extent the Baltimore ordinance were more restrictive, it would not apply. The theory is that municipalities have NO inherent power, and all their powers come from a State grant of authority. Therefore, the muni ordinance cannot be more restrictive than the state law. But please, persist in your theorizing. it is entertaining at least
 
demlion said:
"Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?"

There is (at least) a third possibility: Dillon's Rule. This would limit any city ordinance to just the same sort of sweep the prevailing state law has, and no more. Thus if the rule in Maryland were your gun could hold no more than 6 bullets, and Baltimore passed a seemingly conflicting ordinance limiting you to 4 bullets, the STATE law would govern everywhere in the state, and to the extent the Baltimore ordinance were more restrictive, it would not apply. The theory is that municipalities have NO inherent power, and all their powers come from a State grant of authority. Therefore, the muni ordinance cannot be more restrictive than the state law. But please, persist in your theorizing. it is entertaining at least
Click to expand...

Does that not apply to state government and Federal Government also?
 
psuro said:
Does that not apply to state government and Federal Government also?
Click to expand...
Not quite the same way. Naturally it is more complicated, but in CERTAIN areas where the congress has spoken, their rule pre-empts contrary (even pre-existing contrary) state law.
 
demlion said:
"Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?"

There is (at least) a third possibility: Dillon's Rule. This would limit any city ordinance to just the same sort of sweep the prevailing state law has, and no more. Thus if the rule in Maryland were your gun could hold no more than 6 bullets, and Baltimore passed a seemingly conflicting ordinance limiting you to 4 bullets, the STATE law would govern everywhere in the state, and to the extent the Baltimore ordinance were more restrictive, it would not apply. The theory is that municipalities have NO inherent power, and all their powers come from a State grant of authority. Therefore, the muni ordinance cannot be more restrictive than the state law. But please, persist in your theorizing. it is entertaining at least
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, let's assume you're right about this (which would make it a first for you, so congrats, hypothetically).

Now, why the hell would a cop be charged with illegal arrest for applying an on-the-books city ordinance that turns out to be more restrictive with (but not inconsistent with) a state statute? That's ridiculous. It would be better to charge city counsel with violating state law.

In all likelihood, however, you're simply wrong.
 
Pardlion said:
The cops said that the knife had a spring mechanism and asserted a violation of Baltimore ordinance. The Baltimore ordinance says that spring-assisted knives are illegal.

On the other hand, the Maryland law, which the prosecutor for some reason decided to cite instead of the Baltimore ordinance, makes switchblades illegal.

Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?
Click to expand...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/263171878/

The cops said it was a switchblade. I posted this link before.
 
LionJim said:
View embedded media


The cops said it was a switchblade. I posted this link before.
Click to expand...

Yes, but note the language "automatic spring device for opening and/or closing the blade" and "within the limits of Baltimore City." They're proceeding under a Baltimore ordinance, not a state law. The prosecutor charged them with an illegal arrest on the basis of a law other than the one that the police actually used.

The Baltimore ordinance appears to make all spring-assisted knives illegal, not just switchblades (which are what are illegal under the state law).

If Gray had a spring-assisted knife, then it appears that he should have been arrested. That's not to say that he should have had his neck broken and been denied medical treatment, but that's a different issue.
 
The false arrest prosecutions are toast if the defendants come up with examples of prosecutions in Baltimore based on possession of this same type of knife. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if Mosby herself had prosecuted someone for possessing this same kind of knife? LOL.
 
Pardlion said:
Nothing, because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the issue of whether the prosecutor has probable cause to have filed false arrest charge. That's the title of the thread. If you want to talk about something else, start a different thread.
Click to expand...
The title of the thread is:

Baltimore State's Attorney: 'We Have Probable Cause To File Criminal Charges' Over Freddie Gray's Death

Your posts are kind of disturbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demlion
What is with these posters who believe that the only thing we can discuss in this thread is what the thread is entitled? Are we that simple that we cannot examine more than one aspect of the issue? Are we threatened by people discussing issues outside of a narrowly defined focus that was intended to support a specific ideological view?

Your logic is faulty if you are incapable or unwilling to discuss related aspects of the issue. This event did not occur in a vacuum and the issue is not merely a single event. To think as such is either childlike in over-simplification or intentionally meant to limit aspects of the events which are counter to your position. It is a dishonest debate to say you must only consider one aspect or event of a series of complex and inter-related events and issues.

And yes, the central debate should be THOUSANDS of criminal acts that occurred in response to just ONE very tragic act that may or may not be found to be criminal.

Was the central issue the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand? Or was it the reactions thereafter that consumed Europe and lead to WWI?

Was the central issue the incarcerations of Gandhi? Or was it the wave of revolution that he inspired?

Likewise, you have one life lost here which I do not wish to minimize that tragedy but the perceptions of injustice egged on by media and political figures spread like wildfire (literally in some cases) to inspire an entire city of riots, destruction, and looting. I think that the events affecting an entire city is more the central debate rather than a singular event resulting in a singular loss of life. But no liberal wants to speak of the uncivilized acts committed by liberals against their neighbors that overtook a liberal city, right?
 
Last edited:
Aoshiro said:
If you don't "wish" to minimize the tragedy of police officers killing someone in their custody, I suggest that you stop doing just that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and also, you should believe everything the prosecutor said, you know, because she's the prosecutor--like Linda Kelly. Forget the fact that this prosecutor tried to pull a fast one on the "illegal knife," just like "anal rape".
 
Ashiro,

It is not minimizing, it is putting it in perspective. That is one potential although yet to be proven crime. There were thousands of crimes committed by people against their neighbors and neighborhoods throughout Baltimore. Burning your city, assaulting police and passersby, destroying property, and looting IS the major problem. It is why I and others won't go to Baltimore. It is what threatens the future of the good people in Baltimore.

I admit, your team acknowledging the lawlessness and idiocy of those actions is not going to secure a vote like juicing people up over perceptions and racism. But it is the right thing to do to demand accountability for all actions in this mess. Do you want the people of Baltimore to live in lawlessness because of one death? Hello tree, it's the forest calling.
 
demlion said:
"Now, maybe the cops were stupid, and they lied about the knife, and it didn't have a spring-assist. On the other hand, maybe it was spring-assisted but not a switchblade. Now why would the prosecutor do that?"

There is (at least) a third possibility: Dillon's Rule. This would limit any city ordinance to just the same sort of sweep the prevailing state law has, and no more. Thus if the rule in Maryland were your gun could hold no more than 6 bullets, and Baltimore passed a seemingly conflicting ordinance limiting you to 4 bullets, the STATE law would govern everywhere in the state, and to the extent the Baltimore ordinance were more restrictive, it would not apply. The theory is that municipalities have NO inherent power, and all their powers come from a State grant of authority. Therefore, the muni ordinance cannot be more restrictive than the state law. But please, persist in your theorizing. it is entertaining at least
Click to expand...
This link states that Dillon's Rule applies in Maryland.
http://celdf.org/downloads/Home Rule State or Dillons Rule State.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MtNittany

All charges dropped in Freddie Gray case; no convictions...

Replies
12
Views
562
Current Events Board
KnightSlayer
KnightSlayer
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back