Freddie Gray

Freddie Gray Death Ruled Homicide: All Cops Involved Being Charged, Still Drawing Paychecks

State's attorney announced charges this morning.


family photo

The state's attorney, Marilyn Mosby, announced Freddie Gray's death, from a spinal injury incurred while in police custody, has been ruled a homicide. Mosby announced charges for all the officers involved. ABC News reports:

Mosby announced a series of charges now facing the six police officers involved in putting Gray in custody and transporting him in the police wagon on the morning of April 12. The charges vary for each individual, but include several counts of manslaughter, second degree assault, misconduct in office, and false imprisonment among others. The serious charge she listed was second degree depraved heart murder, which only one officer faces. A warrant has been issued for the police officer's arrest, Mosby said.

The officers deserve due process like anyone else, and ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, their employment status should not have to be tied into those due process rights—it's not how the Constitution works. But because of the Marlyand Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights and the Baltimore union contract, it is how employment with the police department works. Not only did the six officers have 10 days to line up legal representation and give a statement to authorities—in an interrogation process that looks very different than the one you or I would go through—they remain employed by the Baltimore Police Department despite the damage they've done to the department's already poor reputation. They will continue to draw paychecks, and cost city taxpayers money, until they are found guilty. Only then can the city begin the process of firing them. If they are found not guilty, then thanks to the privileges granted police, they could be put back on the street even if Baltimore doesn't want them there. That doesn't sound like a democracy or a republic to me.

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Bobby Jindal's Search for Meaning and a Message

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That doesn’t sound like a democracy or a republic to me.

    Oh, Eddie.

    1. Some pigs are more equal than others.

      1. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,


      2. Ed, there is a LOT of evidence we have not yet seen… and if I were one of those cops and knew a frameup was likely, I’d be guarding it until it can be heard in a proper setting and not dragged before a rabid public screaming for blood, as the media would certainly do. I’ve read just enough that has leaked out that indicates the deceased did “not go quietly into that good night”…. the best hope for the officers is that there is video running inaide the transport wagon that will show just what this guy did, and explain why the wagon had to be stopped at least once to deal with an out of control prisoner. Seems if he’d been a bit more cooperative at the get go, the coppers might have been a bit more cooperative himself, but it seems he had to “cop a ‘tude” and get belligerent. The character DOES have a record of a couple dozen past charges and arrests, going back quite a few years (and he’s only 25?) maybe this isn’t the best golden boy example to use? Until ALL the evidece is properly handled by a real investigation, they remain innocent and employed.

        1. I also just learned that this state’s attorney has a solid connexion with the family of the deceased… and thus must recuse herself. No way can she be neutral because of the strong conexion. That little matter just MIGHT be of some significance? Remember Michael Brown in Ferguson… not even Eric the Hold-em-up could find anything on that officer who shot him. So he had to take out his false wrath on the Ferguson Police Department as a scapegoat, and to make it look like he’s “fising” the problem. Trouble is, this problem has been simmering for abut a hundred fifty years, and one biased grandstander won’t fix it by punishing one police department. Baltimore is, in many ways, far worse off than is Ferguson.

          1. A cop union spokesman? In my Reason?

        2. They should probably still be out on the streets keep the public safe from citizens that are legally going about their business. /derp

          Several times between when Freddie ran and his death the police failed to provide a standard of care. And someone is dead. The absolutely should get a fair trial. But if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt they caused Freddie’s death they should also get a fair sentence.

      3. some rebellious minority males are more equal than others, too. WHAT made this punk think he could behave the way he did and not face consequences? Or misbehave once he was in the wagon?

        1. Citation missing regarding Freddie misbehaving in the van.

          He was illegally stopped, illegally searched, illegally arrested, and illegally killed. What made him think he could do anything? Doesn’t matter what he thought. What he was doing was legal.

          1. He was not illegally stopped. He was a drug dealer and ran because he was holding. He was searched legally and arrested legally. His death was unfortunate, but it was not pre-meditated. Therefore, it does not rise to the level of Second Degree Murder. Any 1st year law student knows that.

            1. thanks for your input, officer

            2. PGP

              Whilst you post here there may be travelers crossing your birdge without being accosted.

              What was he charged with? And please cite Maryland penal code showing where running is illegal.

              1. The SCOTUS has ruled that an individual, running from police in an area that has a record of drug crimes, produces sufficient suspicion to chase and apprehend.
                So, it was legal to chase him and stop him, followed by a search of his body for weapons, also SCOTUS approved, which turned up a knife that all officers at the scene believed was illegal, and for which he was arrested.
                He was, then, placed into the van for transport. Each time it stopped and his condition was checked, he didn’t look to need medical attention, until the last one, at which time EMTs were called.
                Considering this is a scenario that has played out thousands of times in the past, with no deleterious effects to the suspect, it will be a tough row to hoe to prove malfeasance, this time.
                All this was confirmed in TV interviews, by two fellow officers, who spoke to those involved.

                1. The local laws have said that the apprehension and search were illegal. Abd that is what the local officials have said. And the local laws say a folding knife is not illegal. If you are attempting to try to convince me that a law enforcement officer does not know the difference between a folding knife and a switchblade then I have some Enron stock you may be interested in buying.

                  Police officers are required to have medical care provided once a suspect requests it. I didn’t realize that the police officers were also trained EMTs or doctors; if not, then they aren’t qualified to deny medical care to someone in their custody that requested it.

                  A complete lack of standard if care and the result so far is a dead person that should not have even been stopped.

                  This scenario has played out thousands of times in the past without part of it being videotaped.

        2. So, your position is that being a punk who disrespects the police is a crime worthy of the death penalty.

          1. I think that is in the first line of the FOP’s copy of the Constitution.

    2. It sounds like a slur when you say it that way.

    3. It sounds exactly like a banana republic.

    4. “That doesn’t sound like a democracy or a republic to me.”

      Clearly giving in to lynch mobs and demonstrating that you will prosecute anyone to appease the mob, does not sound like a democracy or a republic either.

      1. Clearly when a young man, healthy enough to go running, ends up dead 45 minutes later after being in police “care” something went horribly wrong that clearly requires criminal prosecution.

      2. Actually, giving in to mobs is the definition of democracy, which is why our founding fathers wisely tried to create a republic, instead.

  2. The problem, of course, is the relatively quick turnaround on this, in the context of recent “civil disobedience”, will definitely fuel the notion they’re being railroaded.

    And, did anyone else think that Mosby was being unnecessarily belligerent?

    1. Sounds like she was trying really hard to appease the crowd by being so stern. In 10 minutes she went from nobody to the Democratic Party’s favorite in 2024.

      1. “Democratic Party’s favorite in 2016.”


        1. She’s 35. Can’t be President in 2016 under current rules.

          1. Thought it was 40. Nevermind (its 35).

    2. Well, in the Michael Brown case, the prosecutor tried to explain how they were fair and were out to serve justice and only go by the facts, and look how that turned out for him? Mosby is giving the people what they want. HERO!!!

      1. The Michael Brown case involved a shooting. All sides agreed that Darren Wilson shot him. This case involves someone rising in the back of a police van. Did the six cops use the van to kill Freddie Gray in self defense?

    3. The substance of the speech was actually pretty decent. She’s just a terrible public speaker – although that may have to do with suddenly being national news.

    4. IIRC Aaron Hernandez was charged a week after he murdered Odin so taking just a little longer than that to charge the officers that murdered Gray doesn’t seem like jumping the gun.

  3. Yes and yes.

  4. It will be interesting to see what the DA’s strategy for throwing these cases is. They’re going to have to get creative.

    1. GMTA annat.

          1. “ferals”

    2. I would guess they’re going for a hung jury. The jury hanging is really the best outcome for the DA and Mayor: guilty and you’ve just put 6 cops away for the crime of doing their jobs the way you’ve instructed them to, not guilty and you’ve got even bigger riots on your hands. Anyways, having been in the jury pool for a couple of homicide cases in Baltimore City I can’t see how they would get anything else. It’s a pretty diverse crowd that shows up, and both times I’ve seen it done the prosecutor and defense attorney were both obviously trying for a specific racial/demographic makeup but couldn’t get it exactly right.

      1. Guaranteed the defense is going to ask for a change of venue. I would bet that they’ll get it, too. If they get it changed to MoCo, the cops are sitting pretty. If it goes to PG, it’s a toss-up, I think.

        1. (not sure about the demo of Howard County. Garrett County would be a big win for the cops)

          1. I used to do a lot of work in Garrett and cops roughing up innocent people didn’t get a lot of love. Plus the cops are from “down state.”

            Cecil County used to be rumored have klan activity around Rising Son.

      2. Either way we may see “hanged jurors,” amirite.

      3. Holder and Company worked VERY hard to seat a hand-picked jury for the Zimmerman case… and three was far more evidence of wrongdoing in that case than there is here, and the temperature, heated up pretty high by the media, SharpTongue, JackasssSon, etc, was at the boil on that one. BUT, a few niggly FACTS came out during that trial.. minor details like there was NO evidence on which to convict, and plenty of evideence to support his very plausible claim of self-defense. There is one life ended, and another ruined, because of a false racial issue stirred up deliberately.

        1. wtf does Zimmerman have to do with this?

        2. I consider a snapped neck a pretty powerful fact, especially since it happened while in police custody.
          I’ve seen nothing to indicate he was found with drugs hen searched, however it’s certainly possible that he had drugs which the cops stole,

          I’m white and 65, and while I doubt I’ll get this treatment anytime soon, the fact that others receive this treatment is totally unacceptable.

        3. Tionico

          Reason allows you to post the word “nigger” so if you are thinking it maybe just go ahead and type it.

      4. When a healthy young man arrested by LEOs goes into a coma 45 minutes based on their failure to provide a standard of care that is not acceptable. Following orders is Nazi sympathizer bullshit.

        1. All well and good, but there’s no way the Mayor and DA want these cops to go down for this. They need the cops to feel like they have the power to do what they need to do to enforce political will on the streets. Or maybe not, Marilyn Mosby’s husband’s council district includes much of the Western District, maybe they’re just playing hardball to fuck someone over who crossed them the wrong way…

          1. If the cops walk the city burns.

    3. There will be no justice here. This is politics, therefore the facts are irrelevant. Their creativity will probably take the form of dragging out the prosecution until the public forgets about it. The police lobby needs to be appeased so a deal will be struck with them which may include sacrifice of one officer. One common trick is to wait until everyone has forgotten about the murder’s sentence and then commute it. This is how they roll: deceit and deception. Never forget, the D.A. and the police are on the same side, and it’s not yours. These are the low level power brokers, and the public keeps worshipping/fearing/supporting them. That’s the root of the problem, the public’s support.

  5. In other news, Oakland cops are fighting for the right to watch body camera videos before writing reports. I guess getting their version and the video record to line up has been… Difficult.…..ra-footage

    1. I heard that story on the morning drive. One of the people was talking about how absurd it is to assume that cops are not telling the truth. Anyone who says something like that is either a liar or deliberately ignorant.

    2. First point. Eye witness testimony is generally terrible so even the police are subject to honest mistakes and omissions.

      Second point: Honest mistakes and omissions aren’t why we want police to wear cameras. It is because of the outright fabrications that constitute most police reports.

      1. First point. I’m guessing… guessing we could tell the difference between honest mistakes and omissions.

        Second point. Exactly. When the cop says, “He ran at me with a weapon in his hand” and the video record shows the guy running away, unarmed with the cop calmly shooting him in the back, we’ve got a problem.

        1. Cops deliberately omit information in their reports. It’s standard procedure. For example when I was hit by a car that ran a red light and then charged with DUI on a bicycle, the report implied that I caused the accident by intentionally omitting the fact that the person who hit me ran a red light. Cops don’t make honest omissions. They do it deliberately, because their job is to lie, lie, and then lie some more.

        2. Exactly.

          The problem is that we have taken eyewitness cop testimony to be of some higher standard than eyewitness non-cop testimony. If cop testimony was taken with the same skepticism as all other eyewitness reports, I think people would be understanding of honest mistakes and omissions. If witnesses to a crime all got to get together with other witnesses before giving testimony, a jury would be skeptical, but that is what law enforcement gets to do all the time and then words in the report become gospel.

        3. A LEO shooting someone in the back? Come on, that NEVER happens *

          * if it DID happen, it was the perps fault.

          1. He turned too fast!


            It was the only part I could see!

      2. such false “evidence” also populates statements taken from civilian “eyewitnesses”, sich as those in the Brown case (Ferguson) who swore under oath during questining that Brown was facing away from the cop and had his hands up. Neither were true, as was fully proven by three, count em, THREE separate autopsy reports, one of which was paid for by the dead punk’s family. They all three not only agreed, they PROVED beyond any question that some of those “wintnesses” were lying. Some later admitted during trial that they did not even SEE what they swore to… shouldda been rup up on perjury charges, THAT would end this lying for the record to hang the cop nonsense.

        1. Yeah, see, this article isn’t about Michael Brown, it’s about a completely different man in a completely different location. A man who broke no law, who none the less was arrested, and then died after 45 minutes in the custody of a police force that has paid out millions of dollars to settle cases of abuse and civil rights violations.
          So with all the respect that is due to you (none), I respectfully invite you to fuck off, slaver.

    3. Why is this a problem? I don’t think the point of body cameras is to play “gotcha” with the police, but to ensure that there are fewer things to play “gotcha” about. If cops want to be able to coordinate their stories with objective fact, that’s something I can support.

    4. Any incident that has ever happened in my marriage has two very separate and distinct versions. Even when it is non-emotional and nothing to do with my wife or myself. There is the correct version, my side of the story, and then there is my wife’s.

      1. You do know you will be divorced in no time at all with the last sentence? Your wife’s story is the correct version, every time. Jeezo I’m single and I know that.

        1. You haven’t found the right wife, you have to agree to disagree. Don’t marry one that can’t follow that (that advice is for both sexes)

          1. Ah, but you left out the fact that if you agree to disagree, your wife is going to have headaches for the next several days.

            1. Free marriage advice: “You look pretty.” (said while pouring a glass of wine)

    5. Seems rather pejorative to deny them access to an information gathering tool when it comes time to prepare a report.

      Can someone game the system? Yes.

      Someone can always game the system, that is more a matter of will than anything else.

  6. What is heart murder?

    1. Wikipedia: “Depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is an American legal term for an action that demonstrates a “callous disregard for human life” and results in death. In most states, depraved-heart killings constitute second-degree murder.”

      1. Thanks and stop making that irritating noise, what like every 7 years.

    2. Where’s Nicole to explain to us the importance of hyphenated words?

      It should be depraved-heart murder and then we wouldn’t have these problems.

      1. Ah yes. The hyphen would have made it more clear. Still, I hadn’t heard of depraved-heart murder before.

        1. Let’s eat Grandma v Let’s eat, Grandma.

          1. “No. Don’t. Stop.” vs “No, don’t stop.”

            Not understanding this distinction got Ben Roethlisberger in some trouble.

    3. “second degree depraved heart murder”

      Isn’t that what that dude did in “The Telltale Heart”? I mean, B-more is Poe’s burg, right?

      1. I thought it was that thing Ox Baker used to do in wrestling.

      2. *tears up floor boards* VILLIANS! Dissemble no more! I admit the deed! Here, here! It is the beating of his hideous heart

  7. Hopefully they get the charges right. We’ve recently seen what happens when a cop is undercharged.

    1. Or overcharged. But really, while my personal belief is that at least one of the cops mishandled his prisoner to the point of killing him, I hope there is enough evidence to expose the truth. We shouldn’t want anyone scapegoated any more than want handcuffed prisoners to have their necks broken.

      1. The current operating theory is that the cops put him in the back and purposefully gave him a nickle ride while he was handcuffed and not restrained at which time he slammed his head into a bolt in the back of the van and died.

        That’s why the driver’s charged with second degree murder. I don’t know how this theory squares with the broken trachea though.

        1. From what i’ve read, the died from the spinal injury, no the trachea injury.

          1. I know that’s what he died from, but it doesn’t explain how the trachea injury happened. The fact that a trachea injury exists in conjunction with everything else sure makes it seem like he was beaten.

            1. Hard to say. He slams backwards, his head, falls forward on the edge of the bench and damages his trachea. As reasonable as anything. Once he has slammed backwards and hit his head it would seem reasonable there might be some other injury as he pitches forward.

            2. WAG – any treacheal injury was secondary to intubation by EMS.

          2. It was spine, not trachea.

        2. there has been a statement by the other prisoner being transported in the same wagon, if the ride had been crazy wild, he’d have said something. He claims to have heard some rather loud banging. One report I read also states the cops had to stop that wagon a time or two to deal with what seemed to be a very violently responding prisoner… the man that died. I’d have to say that hitting his head on “some bolt” in the back of the van is someone’s imaginatio. Just like jail cells, those paddy wagons are designed to keep prisoners from doing much to themselves. A protrusion that might harm one of them would never remain in the back where the prisoners are held. Besides, hitting one’s head on a protrucing bolt could never sever one’s spinal cord… unless he slammed the back of his neck into the thing, and it stuck out a couple inches or more. Anything like that would certainly show up in an autopsy, and Ive not yet seen any such report, though I’m sure they are working on it.

          1. Oh, please. Not even Fox News finds the other prisoner’s statement credible. For one thing, he got on the van sometime AFTER Gray was taken aboard. For another, how would he have been able to identify the sound of Gray purposefully trying to injure himself with the sound of Gray being thrown against the side of the van? And finally: wow, awfully convenient timing on that other prisoner coming forward, huh?

            As for the existence of the bolt, there is a wound on the prisoner that corresponds with the size and shape of the bolt. So, physical, objective proof — not somebody’s imagination at all.

          2. Hey Officer Dunphy.

            Where ya been ?

            We hardly missed ya.

            BOOYAH !

    2. If I were the cops, I would want to be over-charged. Which is what they do with tons of people. Be over-charged and you’ll likely get off. Be under-charged and you won’t get off. The jury will ‘give’ it to the prosecution even if they’re not 100% convinced.

  8. My understanding is that, much like NYC’s stop and frisk, the whites in Maryland overwhelmingly love the LEOBR while the blacks in Maryland subjected to its abuse overwhelmingly hate it.

    But Maryland, like NYC, is a progressive state so it’s always going to be a shining example of benevolent governance.

    1. WTF is LEOBR?

      1. Pig’s bill of rights.

      2. A horrible law passed with the blessing of the police union which allows cops to have interrogation rights not provided to anyone else.

        Every cop union should be decertified. Half these problems would be immediately eliminated if police unions did not exist.

      3. Ken White of Popehat fisks Maryland’s LEOBR here:…..more-23744

  9. Well. We’ll see how this all turns out.

  10. OT…..ssman.html

    It is the public that is asking for this. Apple and Google didn’t do this because they thought they would make less money. This is a private sector response to government overreach.

    Then you make another statement that somehow these companies are not credible because they collect private data. Here’s the difference: Apple and Google don’t have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does, and to me it’s very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution.

    1. I’m amazed it’s a Democrat that said that.

      “Then let me just conclude by saying I do agree with law enforcement that we live in a dangerous world. And that’s why our founders put in the Constitution of the United States?that’s why they put in the Fourth Amendment. Because they understand that an Orwellian overreaching federal government is one of the most dangerous things that this world can have. I yield back.”


      1. I think one has to be a Democrat to get elected in California.

      2. that’s also the reason the Second is in there, spelled out exactl the way it is. It puts the responsibility for “the security of a free state” squarely on the shoulders of THE PEOPLE, and tells FedGov specifically, local law enforcement is NOT your job, so butt out. That’s state andlocal business, none of yours. The “security of a free state” rests upon the local people who LIVE in that free state.

        1. The 2A is not in regard to law enforcement.

    2. Wow that guy is great.

    3. Dayum. He should join the Liberty Caucus (if he’s not in it already).

    4. Here’s the difference: Apple and Google don’t have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI does, the NSA does

      Holy shit. There’s a Democrat who actually understands that distinction?

      1. All but the mouthbreathing party retards (which, admittedly, make up a fair portion of the Democratic voter base) understand and could probably articulate the distinction if asked.

        They’re also mendacious shitheels who ignore the distinction in favor of the populist approach, because critiquing government on liberty grounds is icky. Racial grounds, fine. Liberty? Gross.

      2. If he mentioned “the IRS does” he’d have even more credibility. But then he’d get audited.

      3. I personally have no trouble understanding the difference. When Google starts having swat team raids, or starts killing men of any color without trial then I’ll view them as similar organizations. I have no need to cast recent police dramas in racial terms to have very serious concerns with current procedures, such shooting a fleeing suspect in back, then failing to provide any medical assistance until he bleeds to death . True, It’s probably more likely to happen to black suspects, but I think this is SOP for any runner, whether black or white

        Don’t know if I count as prog, leftie or commie. When I voted Democratic, it was because of Republican comments like Christe killing Pot legalization, or Jeb bush’s praise of the NSA. Or Ronald Regan’s escalation of the War of Drugs. I first voted Libertarian in 1990.

        I think it’s much more important to build alliances over these important areas of agreement instead looking for areas of ridicule.

        Flame away

    5. I looked at his district map – that’s some pretty rich territory he’s got staked out. Rich liberal territory. I can see his unprincipled, “laws for thee, not for me” constituents not being too happy about his ideas.

  11. I wonder where the cops will take their families on vacation while they await trial.

  12. “If they are found not guilty, then thanks to the privileges granted police, they could be put back on the street even if Baltimore doesn’t want them there. That doesn’t sound like a democracy or a republic to me.”

    And yet the city is run entirely by “Democrats”.

  13. The system works!

  14. I have no problem with them not losing their jobs at this point. We don’t have any details, and no wrongdoing has been proven as of yet. Further, we don’t know if all were involved, and to what degree. Knee-jerk reactions are rarely a good idea.

    1. If you were arrested and thrown in jail, would you continue to receive a paycheck?

      1. To be fair that is up to the employer. The problem I have is the fact that they get a different version of due process.

        1. I can’t think of any employer, other than the taxpayer, who would continue to pay an employee who was charged with a crime and unable to perform their duties.

          1. Now that I think of it, I worked with a guy accused of domestic abuse. I’m not sure if he was charged, but he was still working. The difference may be that he was accused but not charged yet.

          2. I can’t think of any employer, other than the taxpayer, who would continue to pay an employee who was charged with a crime and unable to perform their duties.

            I would think that my PTO would be exhausted before they stopped paying me. However, you are correct, a private sector employer would stop paying within a couple weeks at most.

          3. But if they weren’t in jail, they would still be able to perform their duties. Guy at my husband’s office was charged with a pretty serious crime a few years back. He continued to work there until his trial (then he was found guilty and was sent to a federal prison).

          4. Ask the doofus that made the Chick-Fil-A video about that.

      2. Yes, I would. I would make bail and return to work.

    2. “I have no problem with them not losing their jobs at this point.”

      People are rightly fired for less than this all the time.

      I’d fire a receptionist for hanging up on a caller.

      …never mind breaking his neck and killing him.

      1. alledgedly hanging up on a caller.

        1. Hanging up on a caller isn’t a crime.

          Still, I’d fire the receptionist for it.

          You can fire people for doing things that aren’t a crime. …if they aren’t part of a police union.

          It’s called freedom of association.

          The politicians who signed a contract with the police unions saying they couldn’t fire officers unless they were convicted of a crime should be voted out of office immediately, and the politicians who replace them should be running on refusing to sign any new contract with the police that stipulates that police can’t be fired unless they’ve been convicted of a crime.

          That probably won’t happen so long as the Democratic machine that runs Baltimore is no longer beholden to the police union. The politicians answer to the police union. There should be no such union.

          1. “Hanging up on a caller isn’t a crime.

            Still, I’d fire the receptionist for it.”

            Then that would make you a moron.

            I was a receptionist about 25 year ago and if the caller is verbally abusing a receptionist, they have every right to hang up. Fun tip: The best way to hang up on someone like that is to hang up while you’re in mid-sentence. The abusive caller thinks that there is no way that someone would hang up while talking. Then when the call back, send them to voicemail.

            1. Actually, receptionists are paid to deal with abusive callers.

              If receptionists hang up on callers for being abusive anyway, then they have no business being my receptionist.

              I’m certainly not going to keep a shitty receptionist on payroll to answer my calls just because hanging up on callers isn’t illegal.

              That’s being a moron.

              Doing a shitty job generally isn’t illegal, and if you think people should only be fired if what they’ve done is illegal or if you think people shouldn’t be fired for doing a shitty job, then you’re a moron.

              1. So you really think that a receptionist, who is being called A GODDAMN FUCKING, COCKSUCKING WHORE-SLUT over and over and over again should just suck it up and somehow manage to handle the caller?


                1. Yeah, that’s exactly what I said.

                  Actually, no. I think if one of my receptionists is being abused by a caller, she should put the caller on hold, come tell me about it, and let me handle it myself.

                  Regardless, I don’t think receptionists are entitled to their jobs regardless of how poorly they do them, and I don’t think you should have to wait until people who are doing a shitty job do something illegal before they get fired.

                  This is why I would never work in a union shop. This is why I would never join a union. Can you imagine having to work with people who can only get fired if they do something illegal? I’m practically allergic to incompetence and shitty attitudes. I used to take over the responsibilities of people above me who were like that, and refusing to tolerate people like that below me is one of the reasons I’m so successful.

                  The toleration of union mentality shit heads is why Detroit is a smoldering hole in the ground. And the thought that scumbag progressives want to make the rest of the country like Detroit that way is why I would never vote for a Democrat–no matter how stupid the Republicans are on other issues.

                  1. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why government employees cling to their jobs so. They know that no one in their right mind in the private sector would ever hire someone after they’ve been working for the government for more than ten years. By then, their attitude is pure shit.

                    It’s an interesting problem for me and my fellow libertarians. Should Libertopia come, what will we do with all those former government employees whose value on the open job market is now less than zero? Are we just going to let them walk around in circles until they finally starve to death? Because no one is ever going to hire them. For employment purposes, former government union employees are useless people of working age.

          2. If the city fired every police officer accused of a crime, there wouldn’t be much of a police force. And a police officer isn’t a pizza delivery man. The local government spent a lot of money training them and proving them with equipment.

            If you’re a cop and you’ve been charged with murder, you should be suspended without pay. If you’re found not guilty, then you can get paid retroactively. But the union might not agree to that.

            So it’s all about how contracts should be made and who has the influence to safeguard the safety of the citizens.

            1. Perhaps the citizenry of Baltimore needs a referendum that would require every police contract to be approved via referendum.

    3. While I agree with you on the more serious charges. I would think that the false imprisonment charge is a slam dunk. And, I would think that would be enough to fire them.

      1. You should be able to fire them for wearing mismatching socks.

        P.S. Individuals police officers should be free to quit even if their bosses don’t commit a crime, too.

        1. I would argue that police should be accorded some additional leeway with regard to wrongdoing allegations. They, rightly or wrongly, are tasked with the difficult job of applying legalized force to the general population. We should hold them to high standards for sure. But if every allegation could potentially result in their termination, we’d have no police left.
          I’m no anarcho-libertarian. I see the value in a well-regulated professional police force. I am even disgusted by the actions of these men. But I am comfortable in this case with allowing due process to take place before terminating their employment.

          1. There is no good reason to keep these officers on the police force.

            If keeping an employee on the payroll significantly hurts the ability to do business in the future, he can and should be fired.

            Rightly or wrongly, these officers did something that makes them no longer viable as police officers in the City of Baltimore–regardless of whether they actually committed a crime.

            I appreciate that it’s not the in the City of Baltimore’s interests to fire cops every time they wear mismatched socks. But if and when firing officers for wearing mismatched socks is in the city’s best interests, the City of Baltimore should be free to do so.

            Again, the point is that the City of Baltimore should be free to fire officers when it’s in their best interests to do so–just like police officers should be free to fire the City of Baltimore quit whenever it suits them to do so.

            1. Except they have that pesky contract – negotiated in good faith.

              Either you believe in contracts, or you don’t. You may not like it, but too bad.
              Next time – hire a better lawyer.

              1. Well that’s what I’m talking about–the police union and their fucking contract.

                I don’t know that it was negotiated in good faith, by the way. Like I said, seems to me that when the police union is “negotiating” with the Democrats that run Baltimore, it’s more like they’re negotiating with themselves. The Democrat politicians answer to the machines that run the cities on the eastern seaboard, and the police union is maybe the most important part of those machines. Those politicians do what they’re told in regards to contracts. Nobody who cares about the people of Baltimore would sign those terms in that contract “in good faith”.

                My point was, is, and always will be that the police union is the problem.

                Maybe there shouldn’t be any police union!

                The First Amendment makes it so the government can’t interfere with private parties associating with each other.

                I’m not sure it protects the right of government employees to organize themselves against the people. That isn’t protecting the people from the government. That’s protecting the government from the people.

          2. It was reported today the the van made another stop that the officers had not reported. If that is true then anyone in the van or following it should be fired since they failed to report this.

    4. At-minimum crystal-clear that procedures/general orders weren’t followed. If police (or public sector employees in-general) can’t be disciplined or fired without a trial, then all hope is lost.

  15. I wonder if the cops will get paid overtime for going to court.

    1. That pBoR says all interviews must be while on duty, at the place of duty. The union was probably really torn between getting overtime and restricting interviews.

      Don’t know how that applies to the trial itself.

  16. So any officer should be summarily fired if charged with a crime? And what happens if they are found not guilty (remember, you can spend a long time waiting for court) and they’ve lost their homes, cars, etc because they were fired for not having committed a crime? Of course, they’ll sue and win, but that’s small consolation after losing your home.

    A better solution might be suing them for funds paid while they were suspended IF they’re found guilty…

    I expect they’re suspended with pay for the same reason people accused of crimes are allowed bail, because they may not be guilty.

    1. This seems especially hypocritical given Reason’s line on due process in college. Why is arguing that cops should be fired before they’re found guilty any different from feminists arguing that men should be expelled from college just for being accused of rape rather than found guilty? It’s the same sort of argument, and in both cases it seems wrong to punish someone before the crime’s been proven.

      1. Pretty sure if I were charged with something, I’d be summarily fired. I have a security clearance. They don’t like people with clearances becoming vulnerable to blackmail.

        1. Lots of jobs have morality clauses or duty to report arrest. That doesn’t mean every employer should fire an employee of charged. Think of all the bad divorces where people get hit with false domestic battery charges. Those people shouldn’t be jobless until their trial is over.

          1. If not fired, they should at least not get paid for work they’re not doing.

            1. I think that is fair. Does anyone know if there is insurance like disability that would cover your expenses while awaiting trial?

              1. I’d there isn’t already, sounds like it might be a profitable line for a certain white duck to get into…

              2. insurance like disability that would cover your expenses while awaiting trial

                Isn’t this why you are supposed to save money?

                1. I didn’t opt for short term disability because I keep more than 6 months salary liquid, but trials can take years.

                  1. I guess you enjoy risking the loss of 6 months salary then. Odd that.

              3. Ain’t that what part of your union dues are supposed to cover?

      2. Because cops are empowered to wield violence. They should be subjected to the highest standards possible.

      3. Different contracts, one involves payment for an education, the other involves labor provided in exchange for payment.

    2. Yes. Police ahould be held to the highest of standards. If the prosecutor is willing to weite paper on multiple felonies, that should be a fieing offense. Same as being arrested for passing hot checks will get you fired from any position where you handle money for a company. Will some people get screwed? Sure. But its not like people don’t change careers sometimes. The idea that you get to be a cop for life, even when you make a fatal mistake, I can’t comprehend. Let them do honest work for a while.

    3. Actions that discredit the department/city in the eyes of the public.

      The death of a suspect in custody under mysterious circumstances assuredly discredits the department, whether or not the actions amount to a crime.

      That should be enough for termination.

      1. But who should be terminated?

    4. Trial or no trial they failed to provide the necessary standard of care. And for that they should be eligible for termination.

  17. Countdown to prosecutorial sandbagging in 3…2…1….

  18. I have no problem with them not losing their jobs at this point.

    In the private sector, there are very, very few jobs you will not be fired from if you are indicted for murder. I can tell you I would not hesitate to fire anyone of my people if they were indicted for murder.

    Consider: what exactly can they do while they are under indictment? What work will they provide in exchange for their paycheck? I don’t think there’s much of anything that someone who is under indictment for murder can do for any organization, realistically, and this is true of police departments as well. Indefinite “suspension with pay” is an abomination, IMO.

    The real question should be, why does the public sector get special treatment?

    1. The real question should be, why does the public sector get special treatment?

      They bought it from the politicians.

    2. If someone posts bail and is able to work effectively, they should be able to continue. If not, then the employer should certainly be able to let them go.
      Plenty of people get charged with very serious crimes who aren’t guilty. Just being charged ruins their life enough without a de facto judgement by his/her employer.

      Please excuse me if I used “de facto” incorrectly.

      1. If someone posts bail and is able to work effectively, they should be able to continue.

        For many jobs, you can’t “work effectively” if you are under indictment for murder.

        In businesses that require public trust (medicine, finance, law, etc.) or dealing with the public, you just can’t have someone under indictment for murder on your staff.

        Driving a tractor or something like that, sure, why not. But for most jobs, no way.

    3. If part of your employees job requirement was to commit justifiable homicide if so needed, it would seem that they would be stupid to work for you absent a contract stipulating that they first get due process before you fire them for doing their job*.

      *Obviously in this case the evidence seems overwhelming that they did not commit justifiable homicide. And hopefully, if found guilty, these cops are punished accordingly.

      1. it all depends on what you mean by “due process”. If you mean a purely internal review by their colleagues after they have been exempted from the normal investigative process, then would disagree vehemently.

  19. I’m going to rant on a topic that’s important to apparently only me. Feel free to ignore.

    Instead of viewing these incidents purely through the lens of race, I have an alternate suggestion: Class.

    The DW exists because middle and affluent class people like it. They like being insulated from the consequences and have been systematically brainwashed into viewing drug use as very bad. And, to a certain extent it is, but alcoholism is bad too, right? And they certain are okay with casual drug use in their own lives.

    Prohibition was a moral crusade based upon how the demon alcohol ruined the lives of working class men who beat their wives and drank their paychecks. By a large majority, American women supported prohibition – primarily middle and affluent class women. Prohibition created organized crime in America in immigrant communities (primarily). Drug prohibition has created organized drug crime in poor communities in America – both black and white because is is viewed as the only alternative to either continued poverty or low wage jobs.

    As a percent of total population whites are incarcerated at a lower rate than blacks, but whites from poor communities have incarceration rates nearly the same as blacks, but no one is sympathetic to the circumstance of poor whites because poor whites are awful trailer trash hillbillies deserving of contempt.

    Please see this book or movie:…..lmg_act_17

    1. Are you trying to insinuate that the Wo(S)D is class warfare, that cynical politicians would actually stoop so low as to intentionally confuse the public with lies and false outrage?

      Good grief.

      1. You certainly communicated the reality more succinctly than me.

    2. Um….of course we oppose drugs. Drugs r bad, mmmkay?


    3. As many of us have said over and over again – soccer moms are the greatest threat to liberty in this country. All those temperance chicks back in the day were the post-Victorian version of soccer moms.

      1. All those temperance chicks suffragettes back in the day were the post-Victorian version of soccer moms.

        It seems quite a coincidence that the government really began to push, and eventually escape, the chains of “limited government” when women got the vote.

        1. As a biological generalization (that does not apply to every person of the gender, but does apply in a collective view), women are relational and men are rational. Women, generally, are convinced by the ad hominem. Multi level marketing is a great example of this. How many times have I heard from my wife “well, such and so said it works, so I want to try it.”

          Government works this way as well. Liberty is a rational argument, an abstract. The idea that if we leave it up to the “market” and things will work out has no relational aspect. Totalitarianism is a relational philosophy. There is a big charismatic leader, a bunch of charismatic propaganda, and a heaping helping of “we need to help our neighbors.”

          Relational thinkers are always going to fall for the latest fad and for the latest charismatic dictator.

          1. This. ^^^ I like your analysis.

          2. I’m not so sure; how do you explain the ungodly number of statist men these days?

            1. they’re just trying to get laid

              1. You joke, but there are armies of “True Believer” males out there.

            2. I never made the assertion that it applies to all men or to all women. I think it’s a subtle biological inclination that can be nurtured or left to wither.

              Why all the statist men who are relationalists? Look to the commonalities. Media and Education. They’re both very relational.

            3. Systematic emasculation…

          3. This might be right in the very, very general sense, but being a libertarian lady person myself who doesn’t rely on my rational function as often as I should, I don’t know that it works in individual cases very often. I think it all depends on where one’s ideals lie. Plus, most of the hardcore liberals I know on a personal basis are men who feel the need to self-flagellate over their “privilege”.

            1. As I mentioned above, I think this is a subtle distinction, and one that can easily be overcome or bolstered by training.

              If you had my balls to the fire, I would point to education as the primary driver of relationalism, especially in men. Primary education is a largely female dominated field that focuses on “people” rather than principles. Look even at math and science class. Everybody knows of Newton, Descartes, Einstein, even if they can’t describe why those people are famous Mathematicians and Scientists. Why? Because even math and science class have a hint of relationalism in what should be very rational courses.

              The evolutionary pressures toward my conclusion did exist for a large portion of humanity’s history. Women tended to stick closer to the village and required daily interaction with the other people of the village. Men tended to be the excursioners. They would go out alone or in small groups, and would need to be more aware of the rules of nature in order to survive while far away from the village. Without the relational aspect, women would make a poor fit in their society. Without the rational aspect, men would die in the wilderness.

              1. Oh, I don’t disagree that women are more likely to be naturally relational than men. I’ve just never considered liberty to be a necessarily and exclusively rational concept. As someone who is relational, I’d prefer for my interactions/relations to be free. I believe in helping neighbors, I just don’t want a gun pointed at my head while I do it.

                1. You do bring up a good point. Liberty, at its core, is both rational and relational. However, for whatever reason, it’s difficult for those of the statist bent to understand the relational side of liberty. There was a discussion of eminent domain in another forum I read. The city is trying to redesign a high traffic intersection, but there is a mobile home park that doesn’t want to sell their property. It was interesting to see how some people legitimately couldn’t understand why these people didn’t want to leave. It was “progress,” it was “the common good,” it was “better for everybody.”

                  Relationalism has a fatal flaw, and this is why liberty is presented as rational. Relational thinking favors those who think, look, and act like you. The less you can understand a person, the less you are interested in understanding their point of view, and the less you want to afford them the same rights you want. Relational liberty is a great way to sell it to people on the fence. It’s an awful way to implement it.

                  1. I get what you’re saying, I guess we’re just coming from different perspectives. For the same case that you cite, I would come to the opposite conclusion, which is that those who want “progress” through the restructuring of traffic are probably being rational or at least think that they’re being rational. Their current intersection is likely inefficient or unworkable and they want something that will statistically be more beneficial. They don’t understand the people in the mobile home park because respect for individuals and their rights is relational, and they can come to no rational conclusion as to why someone would be attached to their mobile home which are typically viewed as deficient.

                    I’ve never considered people who don’t think, look, or act like me to be less entitled to their own property, so perhaps relational liberty depends on the degree of empathy one has for others. So I could definitely see how that would be a downfall in implementing liberty, but I think liberty implemented as a solely rational concept would experience the same issues. Could be wrong, though. I’m a young soul.

          4. What a load of codswallop. (People need to use the word “codswallop” more often).

            While there might be *some* merit to the idea that women are more relationship-focused, that doesn’t intersect orthogonally with “rationality”.
            It might be more accurate to say that women are more intelligent about human relationships. In fact, in some way, libertarianism might be MORE intuitive to women, because women are more likely to be concerned with issues of fairness in social relations. Which is actually a large component of libertarianism (equal justice under law, uniformity, rule of law and so forth). If women are more relationship-focused, they will also be more likely to “get” the idea of contracts and market transactions as cooperative human relationships.

            What MIGHT really be going on is that women are more likely to worry about social status, and thus be more likely to signal socially conforming opinions and attitudes. And women constant receive reinforcing inputs (based on sexism) that they are “supposed to” worry about children and healthcare – because women are born nurses and teachers, doncha know? They are thus fulfilling societies sexist expectations of them.
            So if you want women to be less squishy liberal, it would in fact help to raise the expectation that women care about economics and foreign policy, and not just vaginas and children.

            1. Side note : Economics and foreign policy are all about relationships.
              It’s possible to be rational about your relationships.

            2. In fact, in some way, libertarianism might be MORE intuitive to women, because women are more likely to be concerned with issues of fairness in social relations.

              (That is why there are tons of female libertarians?)

              In any situation, we’re talking about slight biases, and the idea that, as a whole, men or women would be able to make those complex connections intuitively is ridiculous on its face.

              Rationalists think on the level of “it happened to them so it could happen to me”. Relationalists think on the level of “they’re like me, so what’s good for them is good for me”

              Like i’ve been saying, it’s a subtle difference, but one that manifests in politics very differently.

              What MIGHT really be going on is that women are more likely to worry about social status, and thus be more likely to signal socially conforming opinions and attitudes.

              This is EXACTLY what i’m saying. I just merely attribute it to biology rather than sexism.

      2. It’s for the children.

        The most notoriously evil phrase ever uttered by a politician.

        1. Ayup. I got that line fed to me by Chuck Robb during the anti-online gambling shenanigans back in the early aughts. Wish I still had that letter. It was packed to the gills with every political cliche you can imagine.

      3. HEY! I’m a soccer mom!!!

        1. HEY! And I am a sucker for moms!

          1. Needz MOAR RUMP SHAKIN”!!

        2. Get your kids in a concussion prone sport pronto! Soccer is for sissies.

    4. It’s very true that much of what gets blamed on racism is actually “classism” (if that’s a word).

  20. Could it be that the state has finally reached the limit of it’s patience? Maybe feeding a little meat to the wolves. Maybe a bout time the unions are presented with some kind of limit to their power.

    1. mr lizard is down with the human veal

  21. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,


  22. And then:


    And the cops lived happily ever after.

    The End

    We’ve seen this show a thousand times already. The ending is always that same.

    1. One of these days, Hyperion, one of these days.

      1. Even if it was to happen that they throw a few cops under the bus as a token gesture to appease the rioting mobs, it won’t change anything.

        The rules will not change. Maybe cops will just start killing only whites since the media won’t pay any attention to that.

        1. I’ll take a token gesture over a defiant baton up the ass any day of the week.

        2. Being that they face no consequences for illegally arresting people for legally recording them, you can bet that they’re going to do it a lot more. Because that’s what is getting them in trouble: uppity peasants filming them. It’s certainly not their actions, since they’re not acting any differently than they have in the past. So to them the problem is their being filmed, not their abuse of power.

          1. Depending on when you think the past was. When I was a kid growing up, cops were the nice guys on the corner that you could talk to. You never felt afraid of them and I never heard of them doing the things they do now. Of course, there was not a war on drugs back then either. I think that’s the thing that got this thuggish behavior rolling, because now they have an excuse to hassle anyone over the suspicion or contrived suspicion that this someone might have drugs.

            1. When I was in school in the 80s I saw the change. Cops morphed from peace officers into drug warriors. They went from CHIPS to Miami Vice. One helps people, the other kills them.

              1. I just missed that. When I finished high school was 79. There was lots of weed around, no cops though. I’m thinking it was only a few years after that I heard about police dogs being brought in to rid the school of da devils weed, kids being taken away in handcuffs, all that stuff.

        3. I’ve passed more cops on the street in Mt. Vernon in the last couple days than ever.

          Are you seeing the same thing in your neck?

    2. ABCCBSCNNNBCFOXMSNB invested a lot of time and effort to get the trials/ratings bonanzas they wanted. No way they let this slip by the wayside, not when there is that much ad revenue to be had.

  23. Anyone here believe that the city of Baltimore will allow a jury to be selected that will convict these cops? If so, I’m having a nice fire sale of some recently burned buildings, you can start your bids now.

    1. There will probably be a change of venue.

      1. More likely they’ll waive their right to a jury trial so they can get a cop-fellating judge who will do everything possible to get them off.

        1. Yeah, that would be another good strategy for the cops. It’ll be easy for them to take advantage of the massive conflict of interest in the legal system.

        2. Does anyone know how many of those cops were white? Just curious. I see cops in Baltimore City often as I work down there, and I rarely see white cops. I see some, but most are black.

          1. I’ve a notion to throw you in jail for trying to invade those nice cops’ privacy.

          2. I feel like I read somewhere that half of the Baltimore PD is non-white, but I don’t remember where I saw that figure.

            Regardless, my intuition is that just as the kind of people in general who become cops are often people who don’t really care much about the community or the people they police, black people who become cops probably often don’t really care much about their fellow black people and their communities.

            1. I’m seriously doubting that it’s only half, at least in the inner city precincts. I’m guessing more like 80% black. If you get out into the burbs, it’s different, but in the city a large majority of cops are black if I’m to believe my lying eyes.

            2. My point here is that if say even 3 of the 6 cops involved in this, were black, how the hell do you point to this as racism? Black cops kill black guy and they scream racism? How many people are dumb enough to believe that?

              1. I’m not saying it was racism, but people can discriminate against their own race. There were Jews that collaborated in the Holocaust, black people who helped slaveowners, etc. As for why they would do that? Could be a number of reasons – self-loathing, they despise the people and community they grew up around, they feel much safer from repercussions abusing black people than white people, etc. Again, I’m not saying this was definitely a racist incident. But the fact that some of the cops may be black doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

                1. Yes, some of the most strong critics of black “thug” culture are upper-class blacks. I don’t think that’s necessarily racism, but it is a recognition of the correlation between blacks and urban poverty.

                  1. Being critical of black people who are thugs is not racism, but if your critique of “thug culture” extends to discriminating against black people based on stereotypes or prejudice, then it is. That goes regardless of who is doing it, and the same principle applies regardless of the race it’s being applied to.

          3. I have heard that two are black; four white.

        3. They’ll have to go to the Home for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind to find anyone who hasn’t heard anything about the case. Or the average citizen, I guess.

          1. Here’s what they do. They throw out a bunch of questions to the jury pool. One of the questions they ask is something like this:

            Would you believe the word of someone over another person if that someone is a cop?

            The 3 or 4 sheep that stand up for that question get selected for the cop trial, the rest of them are dismissed. They repeat this until enough sheep are selected, that is 12 sheep.

            1. I think each side fan only reject so many potential jurors but all you need is one dissenter for “not guilty.”

  24. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,


  25. It’s pretty sad that it requires burning neighborhoods down to get police charged with a crime.

    If these riots were bad, imagine how the people will react to the inevitable acquittal.

    1. Well, hell, it’s possible they won’t even be indicted.

      1. They were charged without a grand jury.

        1. RAILROADED!!11!

  26. All public employee unions are a conspiracy against the people.

    1. No, only taxpayers. They aren’t party to the contract, nor do they have a seat at the bargaining table.

      But you know those damn taxpayers. They will happily send their public servants to debtors prison, while free riding on the public servants’ labor.

      1. Not just the taxpayers. Presumably the people are party to the contract.

        At least insofar as public employees are ostensibly providing services to the public in exchange for those taxpayer funded wages and benefits.

  27. Public Sector Unions make it so “our public servants” are negotiating against the taxpayers, the same people they beat, murder, and harass. Taxpayers who have no choice but to submit their earned income or face fines and prison. 1000 a year dead from police, that’s almost three per day. The police are just like the ruling elite politicians who exempt themselves from the laws they pass and force us to comply with (or face fines and prison). Charge them all with murder, manslaughter, aiding and abetting, obstructions of justice, withholding information from law enforcement, etc. tack on every petty and gross charge possible and let these bastards experience what the citizens do for once. Don’t assume they are innocent until proven guilty, that’s not what we peons get. Give them the same treatment they dish out. Make an example of them. I can’t believe anyone here thinks these perpetual violators of our natural rights should get soft treatment for this.

  28. Outstanding. They should get fair trials.

  29. Contracts ? How do those work? God forbid (at least some) will retain their jobs

    In my agency, they would retain their jobs until the IIU investigation completed.

    Except for those charged with a felony

    Under our agreement, feline charges justify termination (even though we’ve had several charged with felonies who still work for us due to ACQUITTALS)

    Others get fired w/o any charges. Routinely

    Those rarely make the paper (often admin stuff etc)

    As usual, nobody here understands Garrity or bifurcated investigations and/or how frequently agencies have to pay back pay when they fire and guys get hired back when the case gets blown out of court

    lots of agencies don’t have Baltimores job protection some do

    Contracts, bills of rights etc

    Due process . Booya!!

    And if officer X gets charged/prison, who fucking CARES if he got an extra 6 months or years pay when contrasted with all the officers fired who get back pay and their job back due to hasty firings

    The same people who admit you can indict a ham sandwich are oddly silent

    1. Get the fuck out of here, shitstain.

    2. Yeah. There’s nothing unconscionable or even some higher law that might invalidate a contract between two government entities, right Dunphy?

    3. Dunphy

      Contracts work when both sides are acting in good faith. The police side was likely bolstered through coercion and the funding for the police is absolutely occurring through coercion, which should invalidate the contracts governmwnts have with LEOs.

  30. Btw, just for the record, Baltimore is a corrupt sewer – to include the PD

    1. Especially the PD.

  31. So the new libertarian position on criminal justice is to have anyone charged with a crime terminated from employment, irrespective of the evidence??

    1. Re: AmerigoChattin,

      So the new libertarian position on criminal justice is to have anyone charged with a crime terminated from employment[?]

      Not anyone, AC. Just government bureaucrats. That’s all.

      1. So, fuck contract law. Let the mob reign!!!

        1. Contracts of Nazi scum funded by involuntary taxpayers should not protect the perpetual violation of the rights of the “mob.”

          1. Taxpayers vote in those politicans, who negotiate those contracts.

            Taxpayers always have the power to vote someone else in.

            Sorry – I agree with Sheldon Richman on this issue.

            1. So those who did not vote for said politicians should just shut the fuck up and take it, right? There should be no limit on the state’s contracting power except for the ability of The People to vote out politicians?

              You do realize that private contracts can be rendered unenforceable for a variety of reasons, such as for violating the Constitution, right? So why can’t local governments – who, unlike private individuals, maintain the power of coercion – have their contracts invalidated on the same grounds?

              1. Those taxpayers have options – they move.

                That’s the limit. That’s the ULTIMATE limit.

        2. Where is the contract the the government signed with me, dickhead? Fuck you.

      2. It’s sad that some libertarians are arguing that certain people should be deprived of their rights solely based on their chosen profession.

        1. Nice troll. No one has argued this. People have argued against the unfair treatment and special privileges and immunity given to corrupt law enforcement. if you can’t deduce that from the comments then there is no hope for you.

          1. If those privedges are granted in a contract, there is nothing you can do but suck it up. Negotiate a better contract.

            Look, my company go hosed for hundreds of thousands of dollars by a former AP clerk. She managed to override the system controls, find passwords, generate bogus purchase orders and invoices and stole about $600,000 by the time she was caught.

            Yes, she was sent to prison. Yes, yes, she still has our money (we have a lien on her house).

            But she is STILL getting money from us – because she was unionized and she was eligible for a pension. And there is NOTHING we can do about stopping those monthly pension payments. She still gets them – even though she us in Chowchilla.

            1. The contract should be invalidated since it was not negotiated in good faith and the funding occurs via coercion.

  32. The Baltimore police officers union issued a statement before Mosby’s announcement, saying the six officers are not responsible for Gray’s death.

    “As tragic as this situation is, none of the officers involved are responsible for the death of Mr. Gray,” Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3 President Gene Ryan said in a statement. “To the contrary, at all times, each of the officers diligently balanced their obligations to protect Mr. Gray and discharge their duties to protect the public.”

    1. the officers diligently balanced their obligations to protect Mr. Gray

      Yeah, that’s Mother Nature’s fault that his spine couldn’t take all that balancing.

  33. Jesus Christ, Ed – it is called a CONTRACT. The City of Baltimore has a contract with its police union. Both parties agreed to the terms. Don’t get snippy now when you don’t like the outcome.

    Some libertarian YOU turned out to be.

    1. It’s another example, repeated here before, of why public sector unions are absolute shit and shouldn’t exist in a just world.

      1. Yes, I agree. But they do for now.

        You think the people of Baltimore are smart enough to realize this? Oh, hell no! They still think it is racist Whitey’s fault, not vile union.

    2. The people of Baltimore did not sign the contract. The people of Baltimore did not sign a contract with the government of Baltimore. So the city can keep its contract with the corrupt union but they should get no money

    3. The people of Baltimore did not sign the contract. The people of Baltimore did not sign a contract with the government of Baltimore. So the city can keep its contract with the corrupt union but they should get no money

  34. Not to pile on Edie, but these cops have been indicted on contradictory charges — one with depraved heart murder, others with involuntary manslaughter — i.e., a homicide victim cannot be the victim of both a depraved heart murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time.

    There’s nothing illegal or even (sadly) uncommon about that.

    But the idea that cops who have been brought up on conflicting charges should lose their livelihood, absent even any evidence, is pretty ridiculous …. to say nothing of it coming from a purported libertarian.

    1. Ed is no libertarian. Ever since that bitch Elizabeth Nolan Brown started senior editing, Reason isn’t libertarian.

      All of the talented libertarian commenters have been hired away by “The Federalist”. Reason is left with the JV squad.

      1. Yep…

        1. Ever since Reason dilly-dallied on the Indiana religious rights law, then dilly-dallied on Penn Juliette’s sad sack excuse for using state force against a Christian baker, I realized – the libertarians have left the building.

          Me thinks the Reason editors hate of religion is greater than their love of liberty.


          1. Reason should be supporting a contract written under coercive means that is funded by a mechanism that has no contract and is enforced by people paid with those funds! /derp

    2. ” a homicide victim cannot be the victim of both a depraved heart murder and involuntary manslaughter at the same time.”

      Because the victim’s status determines the acts committed by the criminals?

      I accidentally shoot you, while you are lying on the ground pleading for help someone else then willfully stabs you. A coroner declares both wounds to be fatal – either would result in certain death.

      Who gets a way with it?

  35. What BS!!!!!! You are going to stop paying me without due process? So I might have to go without pay for what 6 months or two years when I did nothing wrong? Gee,,, that will not effect me or my family much… All of a sudden my kids have to live on the street, drop out of college, and I loose my home all because some jerk “thinks” I committed a crime. This is another example of a LEFTIST masquerading as a Libertarian and using the FORCE to get what they want… In this case it is to punish the police and get them in line with their bizarre world view…

    1. What due process did Freddie Gray get?

      1. I’m not sure. Nor do you.

        Stop it.

        1. So none?

          Your heroes in blue got arrested today. They made it to jail without a scratch. What a surprise.

          1. My heroes? You don’t even know me – how do you know who my heroes are?

            Go fuck yourself, moron. You’re such an ass.

          2. Go fuck yourself IN the ass

            1. SugarFree, was there somewhere else you’d prefer to fuck yourself IN?

              Since you’d be doing the fucking, you might as well do it where you want.

          3. Go fuck yourself IN the ass

    2. To borrow a phrase that’s quite popular with the police: if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?

    3. Can you fire the guy that mows your lawn at will? Why can’t you fire the police? Because they have a contract? One forged via coercion and one funded via coercion?

      1. You can say it as many times as you want, it still doesn’t make it true.
        You, clearly, don’t know what you are talking about.
        Please stop.

        1. You can suck the cops’ cocks as many times as you want but it won’t make it untrue that they have been charged and placed under arrest for murdering Freddie Gray.

          It is actually illegal for pilice to murder people in Baltimore city. Please stop thinking otherwise.

          The city of Baltimore is not funded through a coercive tax system? Citation missing.

  36. Anybody know the races of the six Baltimore police officers? One woman at least. I’m thinking a couple might be black because the races of the officers have been left out of any narrative I have read.

    If it doesn’t fit what you’re promoting, don’t report it, is the new motto of the media.

    1. That motto ain’t new, son.

    2. “Mug” shots shown on TV – two black men, one black woman, three white men.

  37. This would be a case where something like the “Family Medical Leave” act should be extended – you should not be fired while under investigation – until you are found (or plead) guilty. If you’re innocent, you still have to make bail and get an attorney. If there ought not be penalties for an arrest, only a conviction, employment ought to be included.

    1. At will employment. Fire away.

  38. People need to remember that being charged is just one step. Anyone can be charged with anything. If the case goes ot a grand jury, they can decide there is not enough evidence and no bill the cops or if they go to preliminary hearing, the judge can rule there is insufficient cause to sustain the charges and dismiss them. Charging them does not mean they will automatically go to trial. For that reason, I think to say they should not be paid at this point is premature. If the charges are sustained and they go to trial, then that is different issue. However, most important to remember as of right now, they are all innocent and the State must prove they have committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The statements and actions by the MD AG are clearly nothing more than political theater.

  39. Mosby referred to “the cause” and implicitly defended the rioters, so I have to wonder if she really has a case, or is just sacrificing the rule of law to the rule of the mob (as happened to George Zimmerman).

  40. Those people have options – they can and they do exercise it.

    They move.

  41. Gee, I didn’t realize Krayewski was a total jerk. I always thought he was just slow.
    He doesn’t seem to mind the fact that practically no govt agency has ever fired
    an employee just because they have been arrested, much less indicted, much less convicted, much less lost their appeal. I have heard no evidence yet that would lead me to believe that
    these arrests are anything other than a rush to arrest by a Black prosecutor to placate a Black lynch mob. Or perhaps rather to lead that mob. But I’m open to being convinced that placing a guy in a police van amounts to manslaughter or murder. Sounds like a mighty tough sell to me.
    There have already been objections to the relationships this prosecutor has had with the victim’s attorney. That won’t look good at any trial, assuming there ever is one. Although it seems as though Krayeski doesn’t think we need to bother with any old fashioned trial. As I said before : Krayewski – a total jerk.

  42. There was another prisoner in the van. Was he in how own separate space where they couldn’t see anything? He should be able to clarify whether the van was driving erratically or not.

  43. Homeside my ass , That idiot killed himself by accident. Because he was banging his head off the inside of the Police Van.
    Why did a black mayor and a black DA hush up an eye witness who was in the Police Van with the convict.!!!
    And witnessed gray beating his head off the side of the van.
    The only reason those Brave Police Officers were indited was the black mayor was afraid of rioting that would of taken place if the Officers were found innocent of any charges.!!!
    Because the Mayor was worried about her poor decisions she has made so far in this matter. She was just worried about how her lack of actions would be viewed by the Media.!!!

    1. Completely ignoring the fact that the medical examiner ruled this a homocide.

      And that the ‘eye witness’ was not in the van and saw no such thing.

      And that the officers stopped the van in an unreported location that was caught by surveillance cameras.

      You’re right. Nothing to see here, move along peasant.

      1. links?

        The witness said he heard thrashing but insisted that he never said Gray did it intentionally.

      2. Unsubstantiated reports that the ME change cause of death from accidental to homicide after conversation with prosecutor.

        “Eye witness”, was in van but not able to see Mr. Gray, also changed story after interview with prosecutor.

        Prosecutor elected with financial help from Gray family’s attorney.

        Prosecutor’s husband marched with the looters/rioters.

        Yeah, nothing fishy going on.

        1. Healthy man illegally arrested by police ends up in coma then dies while in their care. Yup. Nothing fishy going on.

  44. Maybe, just maybe the manufacturer of the van is at fault here. I’ve built plenty of cars and trucks in my day (no prisoner totting vans, however), but it seems like the manufacturer has some liability here.

    Not that the PD is blameless – they have plenty of blame. Their direct actions caused a man’s death.

    But as a former auto worker, that van seems fishy.

    1. Given that he wasn’t seated and belted in (while handcuffed and leg shackled) and instead thrown in th back I’m not seeing how the auto manufacturer is liable.

  45. Man! What a bunch of badge-lickers showed up for this thread.
    That pile of shit in blue dunphy was to be expected, but the rest of the groupies is surprising!

    1. No fucking shit! Thought I was at PoliceOne or something.

  46. They should be charged and brought to trial. Now if they are not guilty they should be set free. If not they should pay a price.

  47. The defense of the police officers for each other is indicative of ANY union mentality. Every union acts the same way…”stand and protect the dues paying member regardless of the guilt”.

  48. Of course they’re still drawing paychecks, they’re protected by Collective Bargaining.

  49. “That doesn’t sound like a democracy or a republic to me.”

    Well, that’s because you’re a moron.

    They aren’t guilty until they are found guilty. Being accused of something doesn’t mean they should automatically lose their jobs.

    “If they are found not guilty, then thanks to the privileges granted police, they could be put back on the street even if Baltimore doesn’t want them there. ”

    Why the fuck are you here on Get rid of this shit, progressive writer.

    1. Their contract was coerced. Their funding comes through coercion imposed on people that never signed a contract to pay those taxes. Supporting this doesn’t seem to be libertarian at all.

      1. Tell you what – if you ever get to an income level, where you have to pay taxes, don’t. Then use the argument, in court, that you never signed a contract that obligated you to.
        You won’t have to pay any more taxes, because you can’t make any money IN JAIL.

        1. Tell you what, I will bet you $500,000 that my household income in 2014 was six figures and that the majority of that came from my paycheck.

          You sound like you were in a union firehouse. The volunteer guys around here are good people and secent firemen and not rent seekers. We donate $1,000 to them each year.

    2. Here, here.

  50. David Simon, creator of “The Wire” has some not so complementary things to say about the administration of ex-Mayor Martin O’Malley, over at “The Marshall Project”, dated 4/29/15.
    I’d post the link, but it exceeds 50 characters and gets the software all akilter.

    1. O’Malley apparently did not like how he was portayed. Probably because it came close to being accurate.

  51. In other, fewer, and less hyperbolic words: “The officers deserve due process like anyone else, and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights and the Baltimore Police Department’s union contract, the six officers have 10 days to line up legal representation and give a statement to authorities They remain employed by the Baltimore Police Department, and they will continue to draw paychecks, unless and until they are found guilty. If they are found not guilty, the city can only fire them in a separate, administrative action.”
    That sounds to me to be consistent with a government democratic in nature, republican in structure, and respectful of the right of contract, the right to form labor unions, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    1. And the contract was not coerced and the funding to pay for the LEOs is also not coerced. Were the Nuremburg Laws democratic in nature and republican in structure?

  52. At least three of the officers charged with the crime is not white. The driver is black.


  53. “That doesn’t sound like a democracy or a republic to me.”

    No, it sounds like a powerful public employees union rule made in agreement with politicians who expect support and money in return.

    1. Exactly.

  54. If you listen to Ms. Mosby’s speech all the way through, it’s hard to believe that the indictments are not driven by political considerations.

    It makes no sense to claim the officers chased Gray for no reason. What is more likely is that they interrupted a drug buy, Gray ran, and was apprehended. Therefore, there was probable cause to detain him and book him.

    Mosby inflated the charges, for example, charging one officer with second degree murder, which requires intent. That also makes absolultely no sense. The danger of her charging these officers with dozens of crimes is that the city will explode when they are not found guilty of most or all of them.

  55. Polly Ticks as usual……

  56. Once these little piggies waive their right to a trial by jury, another cop (called the judge) will set them free.

  57. Great idea: Let’s fire every cop who stands accused of something. What kind of fascist crap is that? THAT looks like democracy to you?

    Paying these guys’ paychecks for a couple of months is the least of our worries. I’m impressed that they even face charges. I’ll be more impressed if any of them stick. In the mean time, gee, I’m sorry, but I will support their due process in all regards. Why? Because denying due process is just mob rule. There can be no rule of law when such emotional reactions cloud our judgment. I’m guessing you would want due process for yourself if put in a situation where you could lose your livelihood.

    I don’t think I’ve ever commented on a Reason article, before, but this one is stupid enough to warrant it. It’s no better than the punitive mob roaming the streets of Baltimore.

  58. I’m really rather surprised at the lynchmob attitude expressed by Mr. Krayewski with respect to these officers’ jobs.

    Let me be clear: I fully expect that this case stands in a long line of cases of police misconduct, and that criminal charges are appropriate. But nonetheless, guilt has yet to be proven here. And the notion that these officers should be fired BEFORE due process has been completed strikes me as a remarkable position for a thinking person to take — regardless of whether the Constitution requires such or not. Requiring some appropriate process, is not automatically a burdensome requirement of onerous process, intended to make dismissal impossible.

    Yes, there are many private employers — and perhaps even public employers, in the absence of a union contract prohibiting such — who might do exactly that. But that doesn’t make such good policy, that should be lauded or emulated.

    I’m sure if Mr. Krayewski were falsely charged in a serious crime, he would not think it fair (even if completely legal) if he were summarily fired, before having the chance to defend himself. And in the end, we should give everybody the benefit of a presumption of innocence, until appropriate process has attached.

    Declaring that these officers deserve a presumption of innocence, but then proposing that, in civil matters, they should, instead, be effectively presumed guilty, is the height of doublespeak and arrogance.

  59. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ??????

  60. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,


  61. So let me get this straight. If I should happen to be charged with a crime I should be fired, or suspended without pay? Sounds like a police state to me. Until someone is proven guilty they are innocent. Why should an innocent person be punished?

  62. WTF business is it of yours?! The city has a black (female) mayor, a black police commissioner, and the Md national guard is headed by a black (female) major general, while the state’s attorney of the city is a black (female). Two of the six charged are black, including a black (female) sergeant. Is there anything more you’d like? Maybe string them up vigilante-style?

  63. Did I read that correctly, a special bill of rights for cops? I find it difficult to believe that cops have become so bold as to admit in writing that they want to be treated better than their employers. Oh, wait, I just remembered, the lie that they work for us is no longer believable, except for the most delusional defender of the police state.

    What do we do about this? Is it nationwide? Is it too late? Should we leave the USSA and let the American Dream die a final death? Or should we stay and fight against the abject subjugation of some who worship authority? Can you stand up in a crowd and challenge the superstitious sacrifice of freedom to authority in the name of security? Can you condemn the appeal to fear based emotional rationalizations? If you stay here, you better. Your life may depend on it.

  64. They haven’t been convicted of anything and it isn’t obvious that they are guilty since there isn’t any video. . Of course they should get paid. That’s the contract they have.

  65. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ??????

  66. John Hinderaker at Powerline makes some persuasive points.…..e-news.php

    Are Reason and its readers, among others speaking out against police violence, being used as “useful idiots” in a scheme that will actually result in a more overbearing and oppressive system of Federalized police power?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.