I still love ya, ya big panda

I don't know statutes. How about attempted murder? Gross negligence?

I don't desire that. I desire the end to killing people that shouldn't be killed. I also desire accountability.

Prior behavior does not mean someone is guilty of current accusations. You should know that.

I doubt they intended for him to die, but he did, which is the opposite of attempted murder So negligent homicide or manslaughter would be more appropriate.

I think it shows he was a thug.

Whether he was a thug or not doesn't matter unless you're trying to justify intentionally injuring him, which you claim didn't happen.

Without further detail, that arrest record could mean anything. Drug possession isn't thuggish, "intent to distribute" is meaningless. There don't appear to be any charges for actually distributing. Trespassing isn't particularly thuggish , fourth degree burglary could be anything from trespassing to B&E, and 2nd degree assault is assault without injury.

Or, they could be more serious. You can't tell from the arrest record, and, like I said, it doesn't matter anyway.

Not to mention an arrest is not the same as a conviction. You can't assume guilt from arrest.

Hmm, I see 5 possessions with intent to distribute. True, I don't have the convictions, but we can surmise with the gaps in the arrest records and the 2 arrests for violation of probation. They don't put you on probation for sitting on the front pew of church.

Spexxvet - You need to check the Maryland statute for second degree assault.

In Maryland, second-degree assault is defined as causing someone physical injury. This excludes minor injuries. Although less serious than first-degree assault, second-degree assault still comes with a fairly stiff penalty. In fact, if convicted, you can face up to 10 years in prison and a $2,500 fine

Sarge,

You do your arguments a disservice when you clearly imply threat/intent/suspicion based on elements completely disconnected to the events at hand, going well outside the letter of the law, and then in the next breath, stand by the officers requiring the people on the other side of the argument to supply tangible, actionable, admissible evidence, by law, to support their claims, or stfu.

Pick one or the other. A strict legalistic perspective of guilt and innocence and culpability, or a more holistic perspective that includes hunches and tendencies and histories and other subjective measures to justify your conclusions. When you try to have it both ways, you just look inconsistent.

The very bedrock of our civil society depends on a predictable, systemic, shared expectation of our mutual respect for the rule of law. Let's face it, the police are outnumbered and outgunned. Why are they not all dead then? Because we, as a group, respect the system. It's not right to measure the actions of the different sides or groups by different standards. That's a recipe for trouble, for anarchy.

BigV - You are correct. I need to focus. I get caught up in prior bad acts being admissible if they show a pattern. Everyone knows I am biased. I truly can't help it. It is based upon my experiences. That is what frustrates me. How many of you have dealt with Freddie Grays in the real world? If you had to interact with him daily, how you deal would with a career criminal with a history of beating people and dealing drugs????????

It is very easy easy for you to sit in your ivory towers of justice. I challenge you to post what you did for minorities in your area and the minorities in your area.

Might you have meant to address Happy Monkey?

"Everyone knows I am biased."

Don't sweat it...each and every one of us is biased.

Apologies to Spexxvet. Apologies to all with that crazy ivory tower statement. I don't even remember posting it. That last sentence is really bizarre.

It's a fair question. Difficult question that we are mostly not allowed to ask.

I've taught some of the Freddie Grays of this world. In terms of criminality and violence, not in terms of minorities. Some of the people in my literacy class were serial offenders bouncing about institutions and the judicial system, unemployed and forced, under threat of loss of benefits, to attend classes with us to improve their literacy and numeracy. All the tutors in that place carried personal alarms whilst working.

They were a small percentage of the people we taught, but they were there. Granted they were likely to behave differently with us than with a police officer in the process of trying to arrest them, but we had our moments.

I also spent much of my teens and early 20s among a fairly drug-soaked and occasionally criminal set of people, some of whom I absolutely would describe as thugs. And some of whom I would class as dangerous. Again, as an unemployed twenty year old living in that environment and friends with them they would have acted differently with me than they would with a police officer trying to arrest them. But then I was one of them in my own way.

You accuse people here of living in ivory towers, and not having seen or encountered people like this guy - and you're right that we won't have seen them the way a police officer would see them - but then you won't have seen them the way I have seen them. There wasn't a single one of our circle, myself included, who hadn't been arrested at least a couple of times. And a man J snd I both counted as one of our best mates was an out and out thug and criminal. He was a dangerous man. He was in and out of prison for drug and violence offences. He had little, self-done swastika tattoos on his hand - which he was pretty ashamed of by the time we knew him, having done them very young. I know of at least two people that he beat the shit out of during the time we were friends with him. One of them was a friend of who kept stealing from him - he shattered his cheek bone and orbital socket. Bizarrely they remained friends after that.

He was also very kind in his own way - funny, charming, self-aware. Also a drug dealer, drug addict and severely mentally ill. He could barely read, but had a sharp intelligence and philosophical bent. He was the product of an upbringing that included extreme violence, long periods of state care, and psychiatric treatment including ECT at the age of 14.

He was the most extreme example - but most of the people we hung out with were criminal in one way or another and there was violence. We were all unemployed and on benefits, trying to scrape by and pretty much distanced from the world of regular work and stability. Generally in an adversarial relationship with the job centre and other representatives of authority. Most of us took, and many sold drugs. There were at least two thieves in the group - shoplifting and burglary mainly.

But for me, they were just my mates. They were individuals, characters, human. I don't doubt to the police officers who encountered them, along with the various other authority figures who encountered them (and us) they were just faceless scrotes, druggies, benefits scroungers and thugs.

Saw this after I posted, sorry sarge.

Dana, you made a good point.