Talk:Killing of Freddie Gray

Lead Poisoning

The lead poisoning of the Gray family seems like an odd inclusion, it was jarring when I read the article. Perhaps retitle the page Freddie Gray, and have his death be a large section? Unless the implication is that lead poisoning led to his having a switchblade, which led to his death, this seems unrelated. Loratone (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a really odd thing to include. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is associated with [1] then I would prefer that it stay. EllenCT (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gray doesn't appear to be mentioned in that article—assumptions like that without any source explicitly linking the two would be synthesis. If that were a story that somehow connected Gray's crime of carrying a switchblade and lead poisoning, that might be another story. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article about the relationship between lead poisoning and crime is from 2013. I personally find it very convincing. If there was evidence that there was an endemic problem with lead poisoning in the subject's family, because the subject was a minority ethnicity criminal who was treated extrajudicially by police, instead of as a poisoning victim, then that shows the reader why science is more important than prejudice. EllenCT (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It turns out the knife wasn't even a switchblade, and wasn't illegal.[2] EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional mass media sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], and possibly [7] although not directly, as far as I can tell so far. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to propose replacing the original text with some of the sources above. EllenCT (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT could you be a bit more specific about what you propose swapping for what?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to revert [8] with some of the sources above. EllenCT (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT — I, too, found the Mother Jones article on the correlation between lead in gasoline and crime rates twenty years later to be interesting and thought-provoking. But connecting the dots to the death of Freddie Gray is more problematic. You have tried to make the connection between Gray’s lead poisoning and police behavior towards him. Your conclusion seems to be, "that shows the reader why science is more important than prejudice”. Of the sources you cite, none provides a strong connection (or even any connection) between the information on Gray’s lead poison levels and the focus of the article on the events surrounding his death. Doing so would be original research or synthesis.

We do have appropriate, if minimal, background information on Freddie Gray. But even as background, the lead poison info comes across as unrelated facts. The Gray family’s civil suit also brought testimony from Freddie that he didn’t like dogs, and from his mother that she was unable to help him with schoolwork, according to the sources you provided. We have not included any of these miscellaneous unrelated facts because they are not central to the story of his death, and it would be inappropriate to attempt to integrate into the narrative. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do those other factors have to do with propensity to commit crime? EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the statements about endemic lead poisoning in the Gray family and their mentions in the mass news media be replaced in the article? 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• No because 1) Mentions of Gray's lead poisoning in the sources cited above do not explicitly draw any conclusions connecting lead poisoning to Gray's crime(s). 2) Statistics on lead poisoning can be correlated with statistics on criminal activity, but correlation ≠ causality. 3) None of the articles claim that Gray's past crimes are attributable to lead poisoning. We need to avoid both original research and synthesis. 4) Causes of criminal behavior are complex, and may include lead poisoning, but also include SES factors, drug abuse, personality disorders, and other factors. 5) Why focus on lead poisoning when the causes of Freddie Gray's criminal background are NOT the main focus of the article? – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• No - Interesting information suitable for the article on Lead poisoning, but not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - I think the specific mention of lead poising in the media stemmed from a few articles that alleged that Gray had received spinal surgery as a result of a car accident the week before the murder (namely this article from The Fourth Estate ). Searches for Baltimore court cases yielded that Gray had recently attempted to consolidate a structured settlement from Allstate Insurance and, coupled with supposed unnamed "sources," the assertion was made that the lawsuit and the alleged car accident were somehow related. It wasn't until further research by other sources (Snopes does a good write up of this at ) that it was found that the structured settlement actually stemmed from a lawsuit related to an old lawsuit regarding lead paint. Though the lead paint itself might not be relevant (and tying his criminal activity to the lead paint is entirely speculation), the very fact that some would attempt to discredit his injuries as a product of his own doing is indicative of the controversial atmosphere surrounding the case. Maybe include it, but in a different area?192.153.142.154 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• no while there is some validity to the research being done in the lead/crime nexus, its impact on this situation is far to tenuous to be included as part of this specific incident. Regarding the IPs concern, we do not have any coverage of the allegations regarding the car accident, so rebutting those allegations seems unimportant. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• No for the reasons already mentioned. BTW Ellen, are you aware that lead poisoning is very common in inner city children? [9] Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am. How does that provide anything other than support for the conclusions of [10]? EllenCT (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral while it is a very odd to include in the article, it may have some relevance considering the circumstances by which this could impact events. I think it is worth revisiting this in a few months after when information becomes available. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should the protagonists races be described in the article?

The majority of the sources describe the protagonists as "white" or "black", but there are concerns that these distinctions offer an unneeded contrast, and arguments for advancing the use of "African American and "Caucasian" as more neutral have been voiced.

Comment with:

• (A) for "white" and "black"
• (B) for "Caucasian" and "African American"

Comments

• (A) - Best is to follow the sources rather than our personal preferences. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• prefer A, but don't see a policy based objection to B Race and ethnicity are not the same, although political correctness often blurs the terms. . In this case, though the terms are interchangable due to the participants involved, but for identification purposes sources are surely talking about race and not the large ethnographic concerns. . Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Almost but at least one officer is of Arabic descent. Not sure which one and if they would take issue with either caucasian or african-american which have ethnic connotations. --DHeyward (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward interesting, I had not realized that. Well, how is that one described in the media? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• (B) Not against policy as said, and has a neutral standpoint instead of a "personal preference". In this case using "white" and "black" offers total contrasts that may sway readers to unwarranted conclusions. "B", on the other hand, brings up less of an issue, allowing readers to make observations on facts. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) The majority of the mainstream sources use "black" and "white". Marteau (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) Sources. Initially this was 3 White officers accused of brutality that ended in death of a Black man. Only subsequent to that was it determined that the arrest was injury free and the injuries and death occurred in transit. In short, race was what built up tension. And as side prediction, of the 6 charged, 5 will not even go to trial and the driver will face substantially reduced charges and be the only person prosecuted. Race will definitely come up again if the only officer facing trial is Black. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I respect your decision, your opinion on the crime is both unneeded and off base.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For those just arriving, here's some preceding discussion:

• #Race of police officers
• #race
• #Since this article already mentions that Gray is black, why does it not mention that his accused murderer is also black?
• #sigh

In light of what has preceded, I'm inclined to take this RfC as some sort of Cwobeel 'end run' to cut short discussion and force a 'vote'. Yet another attempt to exercise influence over the discourse. I think at this point consideration should be given as to whether Cwobeel is simply endorsing specific edits or running some sort of broader ego edit war campaign. See preceding discussions and relevant edit history. That Cwobeel again overwrote TheGracefulSlick's changes after concerns about his participation had already been raised ... Again, at this point I feel Cwobeel's interactions with this topic have become unseemly and would prefer that he recuse himself.

Personally, I'm inclined to hold off on further discussion of terminology until Cwobeel's behavior has been addressed.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Please learn about Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. RFCs are one of the tools we have to resolve content disputes, which this is. I'd appreciate also if you can try to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the point was there was already an in-process discussion that was not in your favor, so you created a new one that rushes users' better judgements to force a more desirable outcome. I'm not wasting my time with this anymore though, the article is of more importance than this squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

!!!Note: Cwobeel took it upon himself to remove my preceding comment and relegate it to a new section below his own content.[11] This is Cwobeels's second attempt at refactoring my edits on this talk page. Additional comments were placed after the arbitrary move. A copy of them will follow for continuity. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It was clear that there was no agreement, and an RFC is one of the ways to go about it. Do you have a problem with seeking input from uninvolved editors? If so, why? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how you got me not wanting to be involved in this embarrassment as an invitation to ask one of the most laughable series of questions I have the pleasure of reading. It was more clear that involved users were swayed more in my favor, which is why the RFC was opened. But I don't care much for it, I like to get things done honestly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Snark aside, if you don't care, why do you keep posting in the RFC? Your point has been made already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Cwobeel's refactoring of this discussion to suit his own purposes (per previous Note above) leads me to feel it may be time to address his behavior in some sort of 'official' capacity. I'm open to suggestions from other editors as to how best (and whether) to go about this and what specifics to address. Perhaps in a separate section below. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This section is for comments about the options in the RFC. The section below it is for threaded discussion. Maybe stop complaining and start following process, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Kevjonesin placed a bullet-pointed 'comment'—prefixed with the boldfaced word 'Comment'—into the 'Comments' subsection of a 'Request for comments'—as is commonly done.[12] It contained links to relevant preceding talk page discussion along with his own personal 'comment'. It wasn't a 'threaded comment' until User:Cwobeel decided to make a 'threaded response' under it! User:Cwobeel then used the very thread he'd initiated to rationalize removing an entry he found disagreeable (whilst leaving other entries with 'threaded response' intact). He then copied the deleted entry into a context of his own choosing—into another section, preceded by his own commentary. <facepalm> --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's Cwobeel's block history that Marteau referred to earlier under #sigh. An entry linked to an Edit war complaint where Cwobeel attempted to rationalize that overwrites are not reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. This led to Cwobeel getting blocked as a result of an Edit war complaint he himself had initiated. <facepalm> I've not yet done a count or detailed analysis, but judging from his overwrite/reversions of TheGracefulSlick previously, I suspect he may still be trying to apply the same rationale. Something to keep in mind should more objectionable behavior arise. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brown and pinkish I don't like the whole idea of assigning identify versed upon skin hue however I understand that 90% of the rest of the world's humans don't share my dislike. The skin hue of the various individuals in the murder was relevant so my suggestion for the article is to utilize the wording used in the references, in other words use a mix of terms as they are used in the references and citations offered to support the article's text.

Since the world's media and its citizens are not consistant in their use of the terminology, I don't see that there is a need in the extant article. Everyone researching the murder will understand the classification of human phenotype regardless. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• (B), because I feel it suits wikipedia more. Although I personally say "black" and "white", I think it would just look unprofessional in an article on Wikipedia. Rayukk (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The style guide from the National Association of Black Journalists prefers "black". The NY Times uses "black" often. The Washington Post and the LA Times prefer it when used as an adjective (but not a noun). The Associated Press style book goes either way. So your feelings of unprofessionalism is not shared by leading media organizations. Marteau (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• A: more of the reliable sources use "white" and "black" than "Caucasian" and "African American". Esquivalience ^t 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• B - Because the media tends to use words and phrasing that polarize an issue and call readers to action rather than simply explain. It's what distinguishes an Encyclopedia from a media outlet. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• A. We should go with the terms used by the majority of sources. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that "African American" is not strictly synonymous with "black", and "Caucasian" is not strictly synonymous with "white"; racical characterizations are an extremely touchy subject, so I would be hesitant to swap the terms used in our sources with subtly different ones as if they're interchangeable. (I suspect that this, and not the sensationalism that some users have speculated about above, is the reason the media has largely switched over to using them; 'Caucasian' in particular makes a statement about someone's ancestry that, in some cases, could be unwarranted or hard to back up without a detailed analysis of their line of descent.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• (A) – As others have noted, the terms black and white are not synonymous with the terms African American and Caucasian, and the majority of sources use black and white. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Use in other articles of controversial police and minorities encounters:

• Shooting of Michael Brown - uses white/black
• Shooting of Walter Scott - uses white/black
• Shooting of Tamir Rice - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers
• Death of Eric Garner - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers
• Shooting of Akai Gurley - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers

The point of these examples is that in none of these articles the term "Caucasian" has been used. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And in the example where race of officer was used only a single officer was involved...makes sense to this multi-officer case. Why is it that the officers, in your opinion, should be called "black", but the victims are allowed to be called "African-American"? Just curious.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing for using the more common "white" and "black" for all protagonists, as presented in most sources about this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I bring up my point that the white/black idea holds an avoidable contrasting view. The other way prevents this, allowing facts to formulate a reader's viewpoint.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that using "Caucasian" is formulating a viewpoint as well, as it assumes provenance from Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia, which is quite confusing if you look at it that way. "White" is more generic and simpler to understand for our readers. Compare with White American - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't form any viewpoint, but if you want to make one up that's ok. This isn't really worth it to me, I'm more worried about preserving the article's integrity. If you want to lower its standards, than I withdraw my valid argument for yours. You may make the changes while I keep researching for more positive inclusions to the article. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We shall let the RFC run its course. BTW, a good backgrounder article is Definitions of whiteness in the United States - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah kinda guessed you would do that. Have fun with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Cwobeel. We should be following the sources, which are also a guide to common usage in the US. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Please learn about Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. RFCs are one of the tools we have to resolve content disputes, which this is. I'd appreciate also if you can try to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the point was there was already an in-process discussion that was not in your favor, so you created a new one that rushes users' better judgements to force a more desirable outcome. I'm not wasting my time with this anymore though, the article is of more importance than this squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It was clear that there was no agreement, and an RFC is one of the ways to go about it. Do you have a problem with seeking input from uninvolved editors? If so, why? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how you got me not wanting to be involved in this embarrassment as an invitation to ask one of the most laughable series of questions I have the pleasure of reading. It was more clear that involved users were swayed more in my favor, which is why the RFC was opened. But I don't care much for it, I like to get things done honestly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Snark aside, if you don't care, why do you keep posting in the RFC? Your point has been made already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Five times Gray requested care, and "jailitis" RfC

Undisputed RS material being removed because it's "unhelpful." I take issue with such rationale. The text being repeatedly blanked:

Marilyn Mosby, the state's attorney for Baltimore City, says Gray had five requests for medical assistance ignored by the police. One officer reportedly diagnosed Gray with "jailitis" — an apparent faked illness.

I am the contributor who originally added the content, full disclosure. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the material. Those are some serious allegations and are part of the public debate on this issue. They are, most importantly, properly attributed to Mosby and go a long way towards describing her rationale for pressing charges and evident outrage. The "jailitis" term should also remain... allegations that the police though Grey was 'faking it' are also part of the public debate on this issue and with proper attribution, this adds valid information to the article. Marteau (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against - No need to describe a fake illness when there is a quote by the commissioner already stating he believes that Gray walked by his own power into the van. Also the Mosby statement has the same info as the charges section in which it says what officers allegedly did not get Gray any medical care after he asked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this concern of my addition has anything to do with Freddie Gray walking to the van or not. That's 2 editors saying the same thing when one has nothing to do with the other. It's quite disturbing. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against as unduly prejudicial. There is no context as to when the requests where made or to whom or about what injury. Gray was complaining moments after arrest and the ME determined all the injuries occurred after being placed in the van. Contrary to initial "eyewitness" accounts, Gray was not dragged with a broken leg, broken back and crushed trachea to the van. If he asked for medical attention 5 times before getting in the van, he had no injuries requiring it. Gray also has a history of arrest and a history of seeking care in lieu of jail. None of it is relevant though. --DHeyward (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems a great deal of confusion here. The fact Freddie Gray requested help 5 times doesn't have anything to do with "eyewitness" accounts or when they believe the victim was injured. The driver of the van was charged with 2nd-degree murder, so I'd assume there isn't much controversy there. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If four of those times were before he got in the van, it's not relevant. It's prejudicial. Mosby doesn't say when he requested it or whether he was injured when he requested it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against including "jailitis" - WP:UNDUE applies here. Who cares what "one officer" said about it? But the first part about the allegations made by Mosby are to be kept as these are part of the charges against the officers- Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Who cares what "one officer" said about it?" Well, I counter who cares what anybody said about anything then? Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because we have the comment made by Mosby, which is part of the official charges made against the officers. What an unnamed officer "thinks" is irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's incorrect. She mentioned it, but I am not sure it has any bearing on the charges. She also didn't mention when the requests happened. If it was all before being put into the van, it's not relevant to anything as he was uninjured prior to being put in the van. At worst, it's department policy violation if the requests for medical attention are unrelated to any injury just like not buckling the other prisoner wasn't a crime even though it is policy. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Toe of the Almighty Camel your not making a point by criticizing what more experienced users think of the information. Some of your arguments do not even make sense, so I suggest letting more users weigh-in before criticizing everyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please respect the RFC format, leave the above for comments of support or oppose, and engage in discussion here. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say it is disrespectful to the RFC format to add a comment immediately following a person's !vote? It's rather common. Marteau (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is much better to keep threaded discussions separate from the !votes. Easy to read, and easier to discuss. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. In mine, it is easier if objections and comments to an editors !vote appear immediately following the !vote. IT is a perfectly valid format (and the most popular) as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting As the editor opening the RfC did not break it out into separate sections, commenting directly after the !vote is perfectly fine. Marteau (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually read that page about the example formatting? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Under "Most Popular". "The most popular option is a single section containing all information and responses of any kind." Seems fairly clear to me. Your option of separating votes from discussion is under a different heading and is a different style; a style not specified by the originator of the RfC, nor chosen by the X number of people who already responded before you barged in and insisted everyone do it your way. Marteau (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is common practice for Cwobeel to barge in and attempt to take charge. I ignore it because he really has no right to assume he is of greater importance to be able to take control and there are more important matters to attend to. I wouldn't have said anything since I am still fairly new, but it shouldn't hurt to say it can get a little annoying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop vs Arrest

Sources (including Mosby) are getting confused on Terry stop vs arrest, as the case develops, we are likely going to have to talk about the different stages of the encounter in more detail, and how those stages are discussed/argued. I want to get a handle on how we should refer to them. (Or alternatively, to be more neutral, I can't say for sure that Mosby is confused, merely that there is a difference of opinion (between Mosby and the officers and various media on each side) as to if the "stop" of Gray constituted "arrest" or not - and we should not exclusively use Mosby's (or cops) opinion in wikipedia's voice.

The type of issue I am talking about is seen at page 7 of the recent Mosby motion (bottom two paragraphs) http://cdn.s3-media.wbal.com/Media/2015/05/19/45f83185-32ef-4074-95f9-61ac8976f560/original.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Tough call. Since it was a high-crime area the police had reasonable suspicion necessary for detainment, but did moving Freddie constitute an arrest before they found the knife? I have no idea. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It already unraveled with the Grand Jury not indicting on false arrest/imprisonment. It seems Mosby is claiming, in this filing, the conditions for a Terry stop were not met until well after flight and handcuff - her Pyon citation is an examination of reasonable suspicion and when an encounter changes from voluntary to investigative (not between investigative and arrest) - though she never addresses unprovoked flight that is from Illinois v. Wardlow and is the exact language used by the investigating and arresting officer. Movement and handcuffing are allowed for a Terry stop as long as it's for officer safety. It comes back to training that they would cuff him while investigating the reason for flight as well as a check for warrants, identity, and any other reason they articulate for flight. Finding a knife during cursory pat down (let alone visually seeing it) is also admissible and arrestable. Really, the only question is how long he was detained and whether that time was reasonable. It sounds like the knife was found almost immediately after he was handcuffed. The Grand Jury punted the charges pertaining to arrest so it is now a presumptively legal arrest (and I suspect that means the knife's legality returns to the discretion of the police/prosecutor). Now it's a use of force question regarding the assault charges. By dropping the false arrest, the facts claimed in the Mosby motion will never be heard in the criminal case and it's only a statement to avoid civil liability and recusal. --DHeyward (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)