Legal Insurrection: There appears to be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth over the claim that Freddie Gray’s arrest itself was unlawful, thus tainting every aspect of subsequent police conduct, thus murder!11!11!
The thinking, as near as I can understand it, is as follows:
(1) Freddie Gray did no more than merely make eye contact with police officers, and then flee. (At this point the police did not know that Gray possessed a knife, whether legal or not.)
(2) On this basis the police initiated a pursuit and stop of Gray.
(2) This police conduct fails to meet the standard of probable cause necessary for an arrest to be Constitutional, making the arrest unlawful
(4) Even if Gray’s knife is indeed unlawful it must be suppressed as evidence because it is the fruit of the tainted tree of the unlawful arrest, as the police did not know of the knife when they initiated their interaction with Gray.
(5) ????
(6) The police in custody of Gray murdered him.
Sadly, this conception of the events in this case and the conclusion drawn merely reflects a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution permits in terms of police interaction with the public.
The simple truth is that under the facts as known in this case the police had more than sufficient grounds on which to arrest Freddie Gray. (Whether the police used excessive force in making that arrest or murdered Gray in the van are, of course, separate issues, which we’ve already touched upon in detail here: What do we REALLY know about why Freddie Gray died?)
As is our practice in our posts here at Legal Insurrection, then, let’s take a step back from the narrative of the mob and the activists and media (but I repeat myself) responsible for their care and feeding, and look to the actual law.
Sadly, the Constitution is mute on what is permitted in terms of police interaction with the public. Do I really need to point out that there was no such thing as “police” in the late 18th century?
The Supremes have made some observations and decisions, but that’s not the Constitution talking, just the self-appointed arbiters of constitutionality, arbiters who have shown themselves to be pro-govt power far more often than pro-liberty.
Ok, we do as a practical matter have to deal with legal precedent when the Constitution fails to address and answer a question such as police powers, but for LI to blurt out something about “what the Constitution permits” the police to do is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
BTW – that MORE link ist alles im Arsch
Blacks finally getting to ‘lynch’ white people. This is what blacks have been waiting for. A chance to even the score.
If your a cop in the big city.
RUN… YOUR NEXT… RUN
Here’s the llink:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/was-freddie-grays-arrest-lawful-almost-certainly/
Let’s see….known drug dealer spots cops and runs, cops apprehend and search drug dealer, illegal weapon found on suspect, arrested and put in police van. I’m not seeing a problem here.
Police vs. Rioters. They deserve each other.
Uncle Al, I have absolutely no desire to start an internecine squabble here, but I must respectfully disagree.
There are any number of concepts that are not specifically called out in the Constitution because they didn’t exist in their present forms in the late 18th century but are clearly covered.
The concepts of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to bail, the right to a speedy trial etcetera all apply to modern police forces as well as to whatever they were called then. This, then, implies that there were similar government agencies in place, thus the need for constitutional protections.
h/t Irish
http://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/2015/05/one-of-instigators-of-baltimore-riots.html
@obama please! (8:43 pm):
You make a good point, and I don’t want to tussle over it, either.
The Const. up to just before the 14th A., though, was not restrictive of state or municipal powers, and the wider applicability of the 14th is squishy here.
I made my point in an over-simplified manner, but that point is still arguable. Not that I have any interest in arguing it past what I just said.
Wait…Freddie was arrested by a bicycle cop?
hahahahahahahahaha
How do we….or anyone KNOW that there was more than an exchange of eye contact? The word of the six murders?
Is there video showing more? Is there a CREDIBLE eyewitness
saying there was more? In reality ALL we have in the way of
facts is what the six criminals in blue said…and even based on
THAT story their conduct was criminal.