Disagree. She was hard to listen to.
In what what way was she hard to listen to? She was direct and to the point and the things she said made sense. She was articulate. She didn't indulge hyperbole or (misplace in this context) emotional rhetoric. She gave a straightforward account of the situation and what was happening. She didn't overstate things and made clear, e.g., that this wasn't an indictment of all Baltimore police officers. She made clear that, even though the information they currently have justified the filling of charges, the officers involved are innocent until proven guilty. She appealed to the community to, for lack of a better term, behave itself. She basically said, we in government are doing our job - we are going to get justice, whatever that is; this isn't going to be swept under the rug and be forgotten about; government actors will be held accountable to the extent they have behaved illegally - so you need to do your part and maintain the peace. I thought she hit all the points that needed to be hit and little else. Her tone was exactly what it should have been.
Do you just think it's wrong that they officers were charged or that they were charged with certain things? I don't know enough to know for sure that all of the charges are justified, but I also don't have a basis to assert that any of them aren't. Do you?
I do not trust her..she has an axe to grind towards officers because she blames them for the loss of a family member.
She also has ties with the Gray family...more will come out about this..
I don't know anything about those issues, but they don't have much to do with what I said. I was commenting on what she said today and how she said it, that was the first time I'd heard from (or about) her.
That said, I guess my gut reaction to such suggestions is... so the smear campaign against her has already started?
I have no idea if those particular suggestions have merit, but quite often people can find ties between parties involved in these kinds of things, that's the nature of life. The issue is, is she right about charges being justified? Do you have reason to believe she was outright lying about what the investigation had revealed?
So much that's happened in this situation screams of some police officers knowing that they did wrong - that they ####ed up royally and there's a good chance they aren't going to get away with it - and trying to cover up or distract from that reality. The notion that she's biased and only doing this because she has an axe to grind. The leaking of that horse#### search warrant application, but not leaking any documents which might tend to implicate the officers. The switchblade BS. The not initially reporting one of the stops. I mean, we don't have all the facts yet of course - but this is one of those situations where having a decent sense of smell gives pretty strong indication of what likely happened. One basic narrative makes sense, it rings true; the other, well it doesn't pass the smell test. Sometimes a good sense of smell is as helpful as being able to carefully and logically work through all the facts. We'll see what further facts come out, and I wouldn't be ready to convict these officers if I was in a court of law, but from what we do know there's good reason to think they behaved atrociously and illegally. It's pretty hard to explain this situation in a way that doesn't include, at a minimum, malfeasance on the part of some officers.
And gives room to plea them out to a lesser charge or to get them to flip on one of the others.