Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Justice Williams a black judge, who was around during the civil rights movement, acquitted officer Nero of all charges.

"BARRY GLENN WILLIAMS, Associate Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court, 8th Judicial Circuit, since December 5, 2005. Judge-in-charge, Criminal Division, January 2, 2012 to January 2, 2015. Member, Technology Oversight Board, 2007-14. Chair, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Baltimore City, 2012-14. Member, Judiciary Task Force on Pretrial Confinement and Release, 2013-14.
Special Litigation Counsel, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-05 (trial attorney, 1997-2002). Assistant State's Attorney, Baltimore City, 1989-97."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/baltimore-officer-edward-nero-freddie-gray-court-verdict.html?_r=0

http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/crime-law-justice/barry-williams-PEGPF00124-topic.html

If anyone forget the story.

http://goo.gl/Hq56wN

Police kill a black man and get off. Not surprising.

So the civil rights judge made the wrong call? You remind me of bardock who still claims Michael Brown was innocent. I bet if i went back to the original thread I could find you making all these wild false accusations.

Pretty sure the medical examiner ruled it a homicide, sport

Full troll mode, i mean robtard.

It even says as much in one of the links you posted, sport

I was un aware that a medical examiner was above a judge and jury, robtard..I mean (re).

I wonder how a medical examiners report which could be bias and flawed is above a black civil rights judge's decision.

Its an interesting theory though robtard, I mean (re)

Easy fella, you're welcome to disagree and you're welcome to party and cheer that these cops are getting off free.

Easy, rtard. Explain how medical examiner > judge and jury,

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy fella, you're welcome to disagree and you're welcome to party and cheer that these cops are getting off free.

But wasn't there a witness in the van who said Gray was purposely throwing himself around the back, trying to injure himself so he didn't go to jail?

Did the medical examiner determine the wounds could of never ever been self inflicted?

Originally posted by Surtur
But wasn't there a witness in the van who said Gray was purposely throwing himself around the back, trying to injure himself so he didn't go to jail?


Yup

https://www.yahoo.com/news/witness-says-freddie-gray-trying-hurt-himself-baltimore-022916256.html?ref=gs

I also thought I read that Gray had previous back injuries, so it's likely he took a big problem and made it even worse by trying to injure himself.

Which just being injured shouldn't keep you from going to prison, so if true all I can conclude is the reason he was doing it was so he could try to claim the cops did it to him.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Easy, rtard. Explain how medical examiner > judge and jury,

Guy, the story says that the officer opted out of a jury trial and allowed the Judge to make the decision.

Second paragraph of the story:

Does posting something that I already read in the article prove you right? Or do you do that to try and get a win?

The first trial was a jury where the medical examiners reports where used there as well, the second trial was a judge decision. The judge was a civil rights judge.

Try and keep up.

Originally posted by Robtard
Police kill a black man and get off. Not surprising.

You're oversimplifying things here are you not?

Originally posted by Surtur
I also thought I read that Gray had previous back injuries, so it's likely he took a big problem and made it even worse by trying to injure himself.

Which just being injured shouldn't keep you from going to prison, so if true all I can conclude is the reason he was doing it was so he could try to claim the cops did it to him.

He had a spinal injury and was receiving a settlement.

Originally posted by Robtard
Guy, the story says that the officer opted out of a jury trial and allowed the Judge to make the decision.

Second paragraph of the story:

Can I ask why you think the judge made the decision to clear him?

Rob tried to lie and got caught. He tried to ignore the first trial was by jury and now conflating the issue.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Does posting something that I already read in the article prove you right? Or do you do that to try and get a win?

The first trial was a jury where the medical examiners reports where used there as well, the second trial was a judge decision. The judge was a civil rights judge.

Try and keep up.

If by "first trial" you're referring to Officer Porter, that was a mistrial. Meaning it was left inconclusive.

No need, already way ahead of the game.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can I ask why you think the judge made the decision to clear him?

Because our legal system is set up to usually favor police officers

Thats a non starter. It was a black civil rights judge with a excellent record. You making up a claim isn't proof.

"BARRY GLENN WILLIAMS, Associate Judge, Baltimore City Circuit Court, 8th Judicial Circuit, since December 5, 2005. Judge-in-charge, Criminal Division, January 2, 2012 to January 2, 2015. Member, Technology Oversight Board, 2007-14. Chair, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Baltimore City, 2012-14. Member, Judiciary Task Force on Pretrial Confinement and Release, 2013-14.
Special Litigation Counsel, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2002-05 (trial attorney, 1997-2002). Assistant State's Attorney, Baltimore City, 1989-97."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Rob tried to lie and got caught. He tried to ignore the first trial was by jury and now conflating the issue.

Lies? You're conflating two separate trials, Champ.

-The first was Officer Porter's and that did have a jury, but that ended in a mistrial.

-The second was Officer Nero's, who opted out of a jury trial.

I already stated that. Now you are bandwagoning.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Does posting something that I already read in the article prove you right? Or do you do that to try and get a win?

The first trial was a jury where the medical examiners reports where used there as well, the second trial was a judge decision. The judge was a civil rights judge.

Try and keep up.

You had argued that the medical examiner's find wasn't above both a Judge and Jury.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Easy, rtard. Explain how medical examiner > judge and jury,

I pointed out that the second trial didn't have a Jury and the trial with a Jury ended in a mistrial. See now?

Incorrect, I pointed out that the same medical examiners reports was used in both cased.

Semantics, which you love to argue when you caught between a rock and hard place.

He got acquitted by a black civil rights judge.

You lose again

Which ended in a mistrial when a Jury was involved.

Anyhow, you're impossible to talk to when you get worked up like this.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because our legal system is set up to usually favor police officers

So in your opinion is the only way all 6 of these cops will be cleared of these charges merely because the system is set up to favor cops? As opposed to them just not being guilty or there not being enough evidence to show their guilt?

Did the medical examiner conclude the injuries could not of been self inflicted? What is your opinion on the comments of the other man in the van saying he saw Gray purposely trying to harm himself?

Also let us say for one second these officers are guilty. Why? Why did they do this to this man? I'm being serious. Would you say they did it due to them just being overall brutal shitheads? Or would you say there was a racial motive? Have you ever noticed that when it's a white person doing violence to a black person the automatic assumption tends to be that it was racially motivated, but when it's a black being violent with a white guy most people don't automatically assume race was a factor?

Big question is why a black civi rights judge would acquit, maybe he actually did his job and didn't let race or color weigh his decision. I know people don't like to see that though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because our legal system is set up to usually favor police officers


Can you show links to Legal Documentation and Law where this is stated?

or to put in the vernacular more to the Liberal Mindsets capacity for comprehensive reasons..



Gotta Link Bra?

Yep when a black civil rights judge clears him then I find it difficult to say the only reason that happened was because the system favors cops.

If that were true then wouldn't of this been the PERFECT opportunity for this black civil rights judge to begin to change things by finding the person guilty?

Robbie is just in a fuhschnizzle twist cause the Judge was black and not white so he can't start yelling Racist at the judge, so he had to say it about the entire Legal System.


Gotta love that Liberal Loonienss!!

So Rob thinks the entire legal system is flawed and bias towards cops, so its a conspiracy.

Our legal system is very flawed, but it''s not wrong 100% of the time. We've seen people condemn a cop IMMEDIATELY in certain situations..even when they have no idea what happened or what the evidence is. That is what truly ticks me off, when people riot and burn and steal when they don't even know what went down.

They automatically assume the cop was in the wrong, even when it comes out the person was a criminal they still will blame the cop. Then they'll show pictures of the victim either as a kid or his graduation photo or something like that to make it seem like he's some innocent person. I can't blame the cop if he wanted a judge to decide as opposed to a jury that could of been very bias *against* a cop.

Cops in the past who have been cleared of any wrong doing have still had their lives destroyed over things like this. If a cop did nothing wrong it means he was just doing his job. Which means some cops have their lives ruined merely by carrying out their duties.

I am not trying to paint all cops as victims or say there aren't any bad ones. There are the bad ones out there. I have been in an on again off again relationship with a cop for the last few years. She has told me some horror stories about criminals, but also about what she has seen some cops do. Luckily she doesn't normally patrol the truly bad neighborhoods in this city.

3rd officer aquitted, now mosby is up for disbarment for highly unethical and with holding evidence..

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-mosby-attorney-grievance-20160629-story.html

Case closed.

As far as I am concerned whoever was the one who essentially said they should give the criminals room to riot in Baltimore..should of been fired immediately. What should of been said "cops, get out there with some pepper spray and tasers and billy clubs and stop these shitheads from rioting and looting".

But you know how this goes. If the cops had been found guilty people would be saying the courts did a great job and justice was served. If they are found not guilty then it's just because they are cops and not because they are legitimately innocent.

It's a funny thing in America where we now assume the criminal is the victim and the cop is the criminal.

Now Mosby might now have testify before a judge, priceless!!

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/states-attorney-marilyn-mosby-faces-trouble-could-be-called-to-testify

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Now Mosby might now have testify before a judge, priceless!!

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/states-attorney-marilyn-mosby-faces-trouble-could-be-called-to-testify

She is most likely going to have to watch one by one as everyone is acquitted lol. I wonder how much these trials are costing the people of Maryland?

Also props to the dude in the video for his "Where's the beef?" reference.