![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
telemann.livejournal.com
Baltimore State's Attorney: “We Have Probable Cause To File Criminal Charges” Over Freddie Gray's Death; police union cries foul.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby gave an update on the investigation into the death of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old who died after suffering a spinal cord injury while in police custody in April, calling his death a homicide. "We have probable cause to file criminal charges," Mosby said in a press conference Friday.
Charges including second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and assault, among others, will be filed against the officers involved in Gray's arrest, Mosby said. The New York Times' Alan Blinder tweeted out a photo of the documents listing the charges for each of the six officers:
The Baltimore chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, the officers’ union, defended the officers’ conduct, and called on Ms. Mosby to remove herself from the case and hand it over to a special prosecutor — an idea she dismissed out of hand. “As tragic as this situation is, none of the officers involved are responsible for the death of Mr. Gray,” Gene Ryan, president of the union chapter, wrote in an open letter to the state’s attorney.
Mr. Ryan argued that Ms. Mosby had conflicts of interest, including the fact that she has been supported politically by William H. Murphy Jr., the lawyer for Mr. Gray’s family. He also noted that her husband is a city councilman, and said his “political future will be directly impacted, for better or worse, by the outcome of your investigation.”
 |  |
More at the New York Time's coverage.
telemann.livejournal.com
CNN - In both cases, a white police officer kills an unarmed black man. But the outcomes so far have been wildly different. So what's changed between the shooting deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina? Here are some of the stark differences in the cases, the lessons learned by both police and the public and concrete changes that could help mend tensions in the future.
Video footage:
It's unlikely North Charleston police Officer Michael Slager would have been fired and charged with murder so quickly if not for video shot by witness Feidin Santana. Even North Charleston's police chief said he was disgusted by the footage of Scott's shooting."I watched the video, and I was sickened by what I saw," Chief Eddie Driggers said. "I have not watched it since."
Not only does the video show Slager firing eight shots at Scott as he is running away, it also shows Slager picking up a dark-colored object that had fallen to the ground and later placing a dark object next to Slager's lifeless body. That could be significant because Slager initially said Scott had taken his Taser stun gun and feared for his life. But if investigators determine the object dropped next to Scott's body was actually the Taser, Slager could be accused of planting evidence.
The takeaway: Ferguson resident Alexis Templeton said what happened in her city helped people across the country to feel empowered to stand up for themselves. And that includes having the courage to film police in tense situations. "Now people have phones," she said. "People aren't scared to hold police accountable."The video of the North Charleston shooting, she said, is vital. If there is no video, folks don't believe it because it sounds so asinine that something like this would ever happen in this country, she said. "But with a video, you can't say it's not happening."
Source
telemann.livejournal.com
So today, two Brooklyn police officers were shot and killed in the Bed-Sty section of Brooklyn while sitting in a squad car. The assistant then fled and ran down into the subway system, where he shot himself in the head, and died on scene. New York Times link here.
Some Republicans have been ramping up the hostility, including former Republican governor George Pataki, who earlier this evening blamed both Mayor di Blasio and Attorney General Eric Holder. But not the NRA.
The spokesman for the NYPD police union, Pat Lynch, was even harsher tonight:
After the murder of two NYPD officers on Saturday, the outspoken head of the city's primary police union blamed protesters and Mayor Bill de Blasio for the deaths of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
"There's blood on many hands tonight," NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association president Pat Lynch said Saturday night, ratcheting up already frigid tensions between City Hall and One Police Plaza. Lynch blamed those who "incited violence on the street under the guise of protest," -- a reference to the swell of demonstrations in New York City and across the U.S. in the wake of a grand jury decision to not indict a New York police officer for killing an unarmed black man, Eric Garner, earlier this fall.
Lynch then went after Mayor de Blasio: "That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor." He went on to praise the fallen officers, and said that those responsible for the killing will be held responsible.
Source with video
So who is going to be held responsible, since the who shot the police offers and subsequently killed himself. Or is Mr. Lynch making a threat against someone else (marchers, protestors, Mayor di Blasio?)
Last Friday night, during a pro-police-support rally at City Hall, some police officers donned "I can breathe" shirts," twisting the use of Eric Gardner's pleas for air before he died at the hands of a NYPD officer, in Staten Island, when he was arrested for selling loosies on a city street.
telemann.livejournal.com
In a major statement on privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected from routine inspection.The court heard arguments in April in two cases on the issue, but issued a single decision.
The first case, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. The police found loaded guns in his car and, on inspecting Mr. Riley’s smartphone, entries they associated with a street gang. A more comprehensive search of the phone led to information that linked Mr. Riley to a shooting. He was later convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. A California appeals court said neither search had required a warrant.
The second case, United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212, involved a search of the call log of the flip phone of Brima Wurie, who was arrested in 2007 in Boston and charged with gun and drug crimes. The federal appeals court in Boston last year threw out the evidence found on Mr. Wurie’s phone.
News organizations, including The New York Times, filed a brief supporting Mr. Riley and Mr. Wurie in which they argued that cellphone searches can compromise news gathering. The courts have long allowed warrantless searches in connection with arrests, saying they are justified by the need to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said the old rule should apply to the new devices.
Others say there must be a different standard because of the sheer amount of data on and available through cellphones. “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person,” Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote for a divided three-judge panel in Mr. Wurie’s case, quoting the words of the Fourth Amendment.
More here at the New York Times.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}