Here's the six Baltimore Officers who're being charged.

Hmm, not quite what I expected. With all the rhetoric coming from certain individuals and media sites, it's easy to get the impression that a bunch of white officers were responsible, and that there was some sort of racist intent. It appears that the officer responsible for the alleged 'nickle ride' was black. I have to wonder if the protesters and rioters would've reacted in the same manner if this information had been revealed from the beginning.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/st...each-of-6-charged-officers/ar-BBj2LGj#image=1

 

Ok, so now we know the names and occupations of the cops. We know Gray's name, but what was his job, where did he work, how did he earn a living? Did he have health insurance as required by law?

 

What does that have to do with anything? If he had no job, no insurance or anything else you think he needed to have, that does that make it ok to kill him?

 

As your daily criminal who affronts laws, happening to have lived in a Liberal City which enabled the guy to get free numerous times before he ran out of bad guy luck. It's actually pretty amazing in a sense how 'lucky' that guy was, imagine if that level of luck were given to a far more worthy human specimen.

 

What? This is madness.

 

Here's his resume -

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/30/freddie-gray-arrest-record-criminal-history-rap-sheet

 

My guess would be yes, people would have been pissed still. Does the racial make of a group really matter when they may have killed an innocent person? What it's OK for the cops to kill someone when they (the cops) are minorities?

 

My guess is no, not even remotely close to the same reaction. There's only a small portion of people who truly care about police brutality. It's only when there's an suspected element of police brutality with undertones of racism when stuff really hits the fan. If Mr. Gray had been white, and the officers black, it'd be nothing more than a blip on the radar.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Being black in a black community where the majority of cops are black seemed to Mean something, so why not this?

 

The race hustlers and race baiters are going to be saddened by this bit of information.

It doesn't fit their narrative.

 

Probably since for some reason white people as a whole don't seem to get pissed when the cops brutalize a white person. I have no idea why that is. To me I could care less about race, wrong is wrong.

 

Please, the left has been screaming racism at every death due to cops (unless the deceased was white). I agree it shouldn't matter, only the actions of the suspect and the police should matter, not their skin color. The Ferguson case proved that actions don't matter, not even the truth matters, only skin color matters. The very people that scream racism are the biggest racists in the country.

 

Ferguson was so handled so poorly it required a federal investigation to be certain the officer involved was innocent. The case was tried in the grand jury which is an absolute miscarriage of justice. The evidence was there, it should have gone to court, and the officer should have been found innocent given the evidence. It didn't get that far.

 

It didn't need to. The GJ didn't miscarry justice, it took a different avenue to get to the same place. Ostensibly, because if a long-drawn out trial had been had with a non-guilty verdict, they would've "burned this (*)(*)(*)(*) down" just the same.

 

The purpose of the grand jury is to see if the prosecution has a case, not to determine guilt or innocence. It was done improperly.

 

Wow, who would ever believe that someone from the Ferguson grand jury would be a member of this forum.

 

this is the sgt? black female ? she was a feminist against a black male

 

Not seeing your point. Lets see what Justice Scalia has to say:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 178; see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

 

And did the Prosecution have a case? How would you have twisted it to get Darren Wilson convicted? Manslaughter? He should've used other means than his gun in a struggle with someone who attacked him and tried to take his gun? Murder? How can you prove intent(much like in this case). It'll be very difficult to prove that Darren Wilson could've avoided what happened, and that if he could that he deliberately chose NOT to?

Reckless endangerment? Is it Wilson's fault that MB instigated the incident instead of just complying?(Of course, he'd have a warrant for his petty theft sooner or later. But Wilson admittedly didn't have the information at the time

A trial would've changed nothing, and it probably would've given false hope. Nothing could've salvaged that mess, but getting it out of the way was probably a pretty reasonable move.

 

`
- A human being who was allegedly murdered by the police who subsequently and criminally tried to cover it it, before he had a trial. None of the facts you posted will have little or any bearing during the up coming police trials.
`

 

From the facts presented to the public the prosecution most certainly had a case. Since there was a case, and the purpose of the grand jury is to ensure the prosecution has a case before bringing it to trial, there should have been a trial. At trial the officer would be able to defend himself and evidence showing innocence would be brought up. Instead of following that path, he was allowed to testify at the grand jury and evidence showing innocence was brought up. The case was tried in the grand jury, which is not the job of the grand jury and is improper. Not sure where the confusion lies here.

 

My point should have been obvious; do you have the info the grand jury had? If not, then how can you be critical?

 

lets get the names correct with supervisory rank btw sgt white is black

 

The prosecution had no such case. You're supposed to prove "without a reasonable doubt". In most normal circumstances, there wouldn't have even been an overture to the GJ in the first place. Ferguson unfortunately wasn't a normal circumstance. The GJ could've done it "by the book", but it would've been longer and more anguished.

 

The purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.