The Baltimore / Freddie Gray situation

[chipbennett]

Where are the facts that support a finding similar to Wardlow? Was this a high crime area, at a time of day where crimes occurred? Did he flee upon seeing officers, or did he try to flee after started to take him into custody?

Part of this is coming back to me - didn't they only find the knife after they arrested him? I might have that wrong.

Yes. In fact, the area was a target for special enforcement, because of the known crime. And Gray was personally known to the officers.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Look it up.

I did. The USSC held that an individual who suddenly and without provocation flees from identifiable police officers patrolling a high crime area creates reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment for the police to stop him. Which by default means that such an action in a low crime area does not create RS for a stop....which of course implies, if you're poor and live in a crappy you don't have the same rights as someone with wealth in a nice neighborhood.
That doesn't sit right with me OR the Constitution.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes. In fact, the area was a target for special enforcement, because of the known crime. And Gray was personally known to the officers.

I'll be blunt Chip, should one have less rights in a high crime area?

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. In fact, the area was a target for special enforcement, because of the known crime. And Gray was personally known to the officers.

Got it. I sit corrected on that.

Did they find the knife before or after they took him into custody? Again, apologies for not really paying attention to this. I'm sure the answer is both up thread, and in fact, I probably knew the answer at one time. I just can't remember.

Also, and this is hard to say, I'm having a hard time caring too much about this, too.

 

[Alpo]

Was the knife in question spring-assisted? (Yes) Therefore, it was per se illicit under city statute.

Further, did the arresting officers reasonably have probable cause that the knife in question was spring-assisted, and therefore illicit under city statute? (Yes)

The Baltimore statute was written 60 years ago. The legality of the knife in question has not been adjudicated. Period.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'll be blunt Chip, should one have less rights in a high crime area?

Actually, let's double down on this.... should a driver have less rights on a high DUI arrest road (DUI checkpoints)
Should those that live within high traffic illegal immigrant routes have less rights while in that area (Border checkpoints)

Kut (say no to all)

 

[T.Lex]

Actually, let's double down on this.... should a driver have less rights on a high DUI arrest road (DUI checkpoints)
Should those that live within high traffic illegal immigrant routes have less rights while in that area (Border checkpoints)

Kut (say no to all)

What about the inverse of your questions? What facts should officers be required to ignore? You guys should have a list or something, to make sure rights aren't violated.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What about the inverse of your questions? What facts should officers be required to ignore? You guys should have a list or something, to make sure rights aren't violated.

Yeah know what, we have a hard job, somethings we get things wrong. If I can't make something stick, I'm not going to force the square peg in the round hole. Sometimes you gotta just cut them loose and hope on getting them the right way. There's no way you will make me believe that in Baltimore the type of knife Gray was charged with is uncommon. No way in hell. These officers felt they needed to find something to lock Gray up for, so they pulled that one out of their *****. I'd love to see the stats on how many people are hooked for carrying knives like that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Has this guy made bail yet?

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxne...2.img.jpg/876/493/1448064916854.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

 

[chipbennett]

I'll be blunt Chip, should one have less rights in a high crime area?

A criminal personally known to police officers does not "have [fewer] rights" when his known-criminal status combined with fleeing at the sight of police officers constitutes reasonable suspicion to apprehend that person for a Terry stop.

Got it. I sit corrected on that.

Did they find the knife before or after they took him into custody? Again, apologies for not really paying attention to this. I'm sure the answer is both up thread, and in fact, I probably knew the answer at one time. I just can't remember.

Also, and this is hard to say, I'm having a hard time caring too much about this, too.

After. It was a run-of-the-mill Terry stop, and weapons search of a person reasonably suspected to be armed and dangerous.

The Baltimore statute was written 60 years ago. The legality of the knife in question has not been adjudicated. Period.

So, the officers reasonably had probable cause that a spring-assisted knife found on Gray's person ran afoul of a city ordinance banning spring-assisted knives?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I did. The USSC held that an individual who suddenly and without provocation flees from identifiable police officers patrolling a high crime area creates reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment for the police to stop him. Which by default means that such an action in a low crime area does not create RS for a stop....which of course implies, if you're poor and live in a crappy you don't have the same rights as someone with wealth in a nice neighborhood.
That doesn't sit right with me OR the Constitution.

If it sits right with you is irrelevant. If it sits right with the Constitution, well, SCOTUS says it does so again your take is irrelevant in deciding the legality of the officers' actions. You are reading into the decision to imply an action in a low crime area is different. Totality of the circumstances and all that.

This exactly. Freddy Gray fled after seeing officers. The officers, at that time, had no knowledge that a crime was committed by Gray. They caught him "without force," detained him, and found the "illegal" knife, clipped inside his pocket. So, essentially in order to determine that the knife was illegal, they had to initially violate his rights in the first place.

So, no. His rights were not violated. You believe the law should be different, but that's not the same thing. Just like your allegations they arrested him for a made up crime. No, the crime is on the books. PC exists for the arrest and RS exists for the initial stop by the law.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yeah know what, we have a hard job, somethings we get things wrong. If I can't make something stick, I'm not going to force the square peg in the round hole. Sometimes you gotta just cut them loose and hope on getting them the right way. There's no way you will make me believe that in Baltimore the type of knife Gray was charged with is uncommon. No way in hell. These officers felt they needed to find something to lock Gray up for, so they pulled that one out of their *****. I'd love to see the stats on how many people are hooked for carrying knives like that.

Speeders are common. You write every one you see? Or do you write problem driver?

Drunks are common. Do you lock up every one you see? Or do you use it to remove trouble makers? Even before the change to PI statutes, nobody went into a bar and arrested everyone in there who was drunk.

Maybe it works different in Carmel.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If it sits right with you is irrelevant. If it sits right with the Constitution, well, SCOTUS says it does so again your take is irrelevant in deciding the legality of the officers' actions. You are reading into the decision to imply an action in a low crime area is different. Totality of the circumstances and all that.



So, no. His rights were not violated. You believe the law should be different, but that's not the same thing. Just like your allegations they arrested him for a made up crime. No, the crime is on the books. PC exists for the arrest and RS exists for the initial stop by the law.

Sorry BBI, I don't believe my rights are ONLY what a document tells me they are. They go much further than the whims of govt. Odd for a police officer, I guess, but that's my opinion.

Kut (stormtroops for nobody)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Sorry BBI, I don't believe my rights are ONLY what a document tells me they are. They go much further than the whims of govt. Odd for a police officer, I guess, but that's my opinion.

Kut (stormtroops for nobody)

Neat. But we work under the rule of law, not the whims of Kut. If you're going to accuse officers of violating rights and enforcing make believe laws, you should probably point out that it's in the imaginary land of Kut's Ideal World instead of the real one.

If what they did was right or not is a different question. I'm just pointing out you're completely off base in some of your accusations as to the existence of the law, the existence of PC, etc.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Speeders are common. You write every one you see? Or do you write problem driver?

Drunks are common. Do you lock up every one you see? Or do you use it to remove trouble makers? Even before the change to PI statutes, nobody went into a bar and arrested everyone in there who was drunk.

Maybe it works different in Carmel.

Speeding.... contrary to law, enforcement discretion allowed.
Drunk in public.... contrary (used to be) to law, enforcement discretion allowed.
Making eye contact with police and running.... not contrary to law, enforcement.... uhhhhh.... for what?

Oh... being compelled to stop for something NOT contrary to law, finding an "illegal" item afterwards (fruit from a poisonous tree) and then enforcing. No bueno....

 

[T.Lex]

I think I remember why I bailed from this thread back in the day.

 

[bobzilla]

I just find it funny that the carmel cop is arguing about mah rights when that entire city is known to pull over cars for DWB. The irony is not lost on me.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If this thread has taught me anything, it's that I sure as hell don't want to be pulled over by an INGO cop... or represented by an INGO lawyer.

They're all so long-winded!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I just find it funny that the carmel cop is arguing about mah rights when that entire city is known to pull over cars for DWB. The irony is not lost on me.

The irony is not lost on me, that if that were the case, you'd probably be breaking your neck to buy a home here.

 

[bobzilla]

The irony is not lost on me, that if that were the case, you'd probably be breaking your neck to buy a home here.

Oh hell no. You stuck up ****ers annoyed me when I worked there. No way in hell I'd want to LIVE with you. 13 years was enough of that to last me a lifetime.

Also, if you're going to call someone a racist, you should do your homework. It's impossible to be racist when you hate all people.