Here Are the 18 Crimes Freddie Gray Was Charged With Before His Tragic Death That Started the Baltimore Riots

Photo Credit: Heavy

Photo Credit: Heavy

Freddie Gray, who died a week after suffering injuries while in Baltimore police custody, had a lengthy criminal record, mainly for drug-related offenses, according to state court records. Police claim he was “involved in criminal activity,” prior to his arrest.

Gray, 25, died after spending seven days in a coma as a result of injuries he suffered while in the custody of city police, the Baltimore Sun reports.

He was arrested April 12 by four officers outside a public housing complex. Police said four bicycle officers tried to stop Gray for an unspecified reason and he ran from them. They caught him and detained him while waiting for backup . . .

Gray had a lengthy arrest record with convictions dating back until at least 2007, according to the Maryland Department of Justice. Not all of the arrests led to convictions, in many of the cases he pleaded guilty to one charge while the others were dropped. Exact details of when he spent time in prison were not immediately available. His arrest record includes at least 18 arrests:

March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance

March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault

January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing

January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous
substance with intent to distribute

December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute

December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance

August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing

January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana

September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape

April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation

July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute

March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance

March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute

February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance

August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation

August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana

August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous

July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)

(Read more from “Here Are the 18 Crimes Freddie Gray Was Charged With Before His Tragic Death That Started the Baltimore Riots” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

  • Mark

    Another fine upstanding citizen.

    • Deja Douglass



      ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ < http://WWW.JobHugo.COM

  • PTA Mom

    It is my understanding that some Baltimore City Public School high school students? or was it outside groups? were using Facebook to try to organize a “Purge” (based on the movie of the same name, i.e. every year there is 1 day of lawlessness which is ok because it takes away the energy for crime for the other 364 days of the year??).

    Students were urged by fellow students? or outside groups? to meet at 3pm (right after school let out) on Monday at Mondawmin Mall which is right across the street from Frederick Douglas High School and also a bus hub for other high schools is my understanding. Baltimore City Public School students use public transportation to get to and from school. They do not use separate school buses.

    I would like to know if authorities purposely allowed or were ordered to allow the gatherings to get out of hand, fueling a continuing lawlessness that ended up involving large numbers of adults once they saw that the police were ordered not to intervene. The result was the burning of 144 cars, 15 buildings (including a huge 8 year, multi million project on the east side of town that a church there had raised funds for) and I haven’t even seen the numbers for looted businesses given. 20 policeman injured (throwing rocks, chunks of concrete at police).

    There was a huge difference between the responses of the Democrat Mayor and the Republican Governor of Maryland.

    To see the Mayor allow chaos in the poorest of neighborhoods, just increases my continuing belief that Democrats hate poor people. They just use them like a commodity to enrich their supporters.

    To see the Governor move his office from the state capital to Baltimore for now, to see him have an emergency order ready, signing it within 30 seconds of Baltimore City asking for assistance, to see him tour Shock Trauma late Monday night to thank staff for treating law enforcement officers, to see him tour Mondawmin Mall Tuesday and Sandtown, a neighborhood hit hard… also a neighborhood where Habitat for Humanity is working.

    Good government makes a difference. We have to elect people with the character to give it to us.

  • SCYankee99!

    Freddie Gray is dead, and that is a tragedy. But he is dead because he had no code. He is dead because he had no honor, and God was watching.

    • John Liberty

      “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” – James 1:13-15.

  • This man, I believe, deliberately KILLED himself when you consider his medical profile of delicate spine problems and the fact, now reported, that he abused himself to inflict bodily damage on himself in the police jail wagon!….SHAME!!!!


  • ijohnc1

    That makes him a folk hero in the black community, like the thug from Ferguson, the list is endless on the down trodden and the shiftless thugs in the black community that are touted as hero’s.
    Their attitude is you owe us, and we intend to collect, the police single us out, and get the spokesman from the whitehouse Al (shakedown) Sharpton, down here he will help us destroy our own community.
    And then there is the mayor and her pouring gas on the fire.
    “A house divided, cannot stand”….President Lincoln

    • bob machaffy

      their goal after a white republican president ended slavery, was to make the white man pay, and pay, it’s time to end

      • pineapple

        Lincoln was a racist who was also guilty of
        war crimes and is responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans.

        In 1858, during a debate with Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln said: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people….” (Google Lincoln-Douglas debates.)

        It is commonly taught that the War Between the States was about the abolition of slavery. Actually, the
        impetus for the war was due to a tariff placed on imported goods coming through Southern sea ports by a Northern dominated Congress. This tariff was referred to by Southerners as the Tariff of Abominations and nearly caused South Carolina to secede from the Union. Andrew Jackson threatened to send federal troops to Charleston if South Carolina refused to collect the tariff and send it to Washington.
        (See “Kearney’s March” by Winston Groom.)

        This tariff was used to build roads and bridges in the northern states while the south was left to fend for

        Senator William Grayson of Virginia expressed concern that the South would eventually become the “milch cow” of the Union.

        When the southern states threatened secession, Lincoln was asked why he didn’t just let the South go. He said: ”Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?”(See “Memoirs of Service Afloat” by Raphael Semmes.)

        Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation excluded slave states that remained in the Union and certain parishes in Louisiana that were under control of Union
        troops. It only applied to states in the Confederacy, which was a sovereign nation, over which Lincoln
        had no legal authority.

        Therefore, his proclamation did not free slaves anywhere.

        Slaves were eventually freed by passage of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6th, 1865.

        Some of the many atrocitiescommitted by Lincoln’s
        Union Army are as follows:

        Lincoln ordered General Sherman to “make Georgia howl.” So Sherman
        marched through Georgia
        burning not only towns, villages, factories and grist mills, but also burning
        crops, leaving women, children, and the elderly to starve. Sherman captured more than two thousand white
        women and children who were sent to the North to work at sustenance level pay,
        making them virtual slaves for the Yankees. They were never returned to their

        Union Colonel
        John B. Turchin was court-martialed for letting his troops “plunder and pillage
        the inhabitants” of Athens,
        Alabama, and allowing several of
        his soldiers to commit rape on the person of a colored girl. After being
        convicted, Turchhin was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General by Abraham
        Lincoln and continued to serve in the Union Army until Oct 4, 1864.

        In Marion County
        Missouri, Gen. John McNeil threw southern sympathizers in jail for expressing a
        pro-Southern point of view. When a Union informer came up missing, McNeil
        threatened to kill ten of these men if the informer did not show up. When the
        informer didn’t show up, these men were summarily executed. Shortly afterwards,
        McNeil was promoted to Brigadier General by Lincoln.

        In 1862, several tribes of Native Americans
        revolted against the cruel policies of the United States government. This
        caused Minnesotans to fear for their safety. General John Pope rounded up 300
        warriors, out of which Lincoln
        selected thirty nine to be executed. These Native Americans were executed to
        assuage the fears of white Minnesotans so they would vote for the re-election
        of Lincoln,
        which they did. (For details of the above and other atrocities, see, “The South
        was Right” by James and Walter Kennedy.)

        By invading The Confederate States of America, a
        sovereign nation, Lincoln caused the death of 600,000 Americans, not to end slavery but to hold on to power.

        • Bill Marble

          Sorry Pineapple. As we know from Pres. Obama, it matters not what a president candidate says but rather what he does which matters. Whatever Lincoln may or may not have been guilty of, he did end slavery. But since you refuse to accept that FACT we can only conclude you ignore reality in favor of promoting an agenda, which is a lie.

          • pineapple

            Actually, the slaves were freed by passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

            Furthermore, for your edification, the real cause of the so called “Civil War” was not due to slavery.

            From “The South was right” by
            Kennedy and Kennedy:

            In 1828, Senator Thomas H.
            Benton declared:

            “Before the Revolution, the
            South was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality… Wealth has fled from the
            South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the
            fact, the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the
            Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North
            has exported comparatively nothing , Such an export would indicate unparalleled
            wealth, but what is the fact?….Under Federal legislation, the exports of the
            South have been the basis of the Federal revenue….Virginia, the two Carolinas,
            and Georgia, may be said to defray three fourths, of the annual expense of
            supporting the Federal Government, and of this great sum, annually furnished by
            them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of
            government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it
            flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is
            the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North.
            Federal legislation does all this.”

            The abolitionists claimed that slavery was
            the cause of the loss of wealth in the South. Professor Jonothan Elliot, a
            teacher of science at Harvard
            University, discounted
            this theory and stated that it was federal legislation in regard to the Tariff
            Acts that was the culprit.

            A pertinent incident is reported in The Sectional
            controversy, written by W.C. fowler and published in 1864. The author recounted
            an incident when, fifteen or twenty years previously, he met a friend from his
            college days who was at that time a prominent Northern member of Congress. The
            Congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and sectional
            issues. Fowler asked the Congressman what was the real reason that Northerners
            were encouraging abolitionist’s petitions. The Congressman replied, “The real
            reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them where
            they will feel it.”

            George Lunt, author of
            “Origin of the Late War”, noted.

            In 1833 there was a surplus of revenue of
            many millions in the public treasury which by an act of legislation
            unparalleled in the history of nations was distributed among the Northern
            States to be used for local public improvements.

            President James Buchanan’s
            message to Congress declared, The South had not had her share of money from the
            treasury and unjust discrimination had made against her…

            When the Northern president
            Lincoln was asked why the North should not let the South go, his reply was,
            “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues!”

            Patrick Henry warned the
            South about placing our faith in the good will of the North when he spoke out
            against the proposed Constitution.

            “But I am sure that the dangers of thie
            system (the Federal Constitution) are real, when those who have no similar
            interest with people of this country (the South) are to legislate for us—when
            our dearest rights are to be left, in the hands those, whose advantage it will
            be to infringe them.”

            It is revealing to read
            Northern newspaper accounts that document the change in the mood of the North
            during the first months after the South seceded. At first, there appears to be
            a mood to allow the South exercise its right of self determination. Then we
            begin to see predictions of loss if the North allows the ten percent tariff
            established by the Southern Confederacy to remain in place and to compete with
            its higher tariff. Some writers have noted that there were predictions that
            grass would grow in the streets of New York,
            while the port of
            New Orleans would

            The Northern colonies, from
            the earliest part of the history of the United States, had a great fear of
            losing their trade in the Western territories. In 1786, John Jay of New York caused an uproar in Congress among the Southern
            delegates with his attempt to give up rights to the Mississippi River to Spain
            in exchange for commercial advantages in Spanish ports. (The New Nation by
            Merrill – Northeastern University Press, Boston
            MA: 1981, p. 418)

            The great fear of the
            commercial North was that all or a great part of the commerce west of the
            Appalachian mountains would pass through the port of New Orleans and leave the
            Eastern ports with very little commerce. The North made many efforts early in
            American history to give control of the land and great rivers of the Mississippi Valley
            to Spain.
            This, they believed, would keep American commerce in Northern ports. These
            efforts are recorded in The New Nation in part by the following:

            At the same time they (Northerners wanted to
            control the trade of the West, and this would be denied them, they felt if the Mississippi were open to
            western trade. They believed that only be closing the river could commerce be
            forced eastward across the mountains.

            The political and economic implications of
            agrarian expansion westward were alarming to certain mercantile interests in
            the East who feared the loss of their political and economic control of an
            expanding America.

            This fear of losing its commercial advantages to the
            states along the Mississippi
            was a prime factor on the North’s invasion of the South. (emphases added)

            Just weeks before the firing
            of the first shots of the war, The New York Times ran a story about how the
            commerce of the North would be lost to New
            Orleans and the rest of the South because of the low
            Southern tariff. Northerners even admitted that their reasons for fighting the
            South were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law
            but only because their profits might be lost if the South was successful in its
            move for independence. On March 30, 1861, the New York Times made the following

            The predicament in which both the Government
            and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our
            revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood to the world over…If the
            manufacturer in Manchester (England) can send goods to the Western States
            through New Orleans at a less cost then through New York, he is a fool for not
            availing himself of this advantage….If the importation of the country are made
            through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The
            produce of the West, instead of coming to our own ports by millions of tons, to
            be transported abroad by the same ships through we are receiving our importations,
            will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade,
            what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred
            millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They
            share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers…Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over
            the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple…The commercial
            bearing of the question has acted upon the North…We now see clearly whither we
            are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract
            question—one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated
            power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral
            position both at home and abroad…We were
            divided and confused until our pocketbooks were touched. (emphases added)

            In an earlier article, The
            New York Times complained about the loss of revenue because the tariffs were no
            longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoans the fact
            that new loans were needed but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect
            the “National tariff.” (The New York Times, “An Extra Session of Congress,”
            March 23, 1861, p.4)

            In an editorial, the
            Manchester, New Hampshire, Union Democrat had this to say about the loss of its
            commercial advantages if the North were to” let the South go.”

            The southern confederacy will
            not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it?
            Literally nothing. The transportation of
            cotton and its fabrics employs more shops than all other trade. It is very
            clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No—we MUST NOT “LET
            THE South go.”

            (Union Democrat, “Let the
            South Go!” Manchester, NH, February 19,1861, recorded in Northern Editorials on
            Secession, Howard C.Perkins, ed., 1965, pp 591-92)

            The New York Evening Post
            bemoaned the loss of tax dollars if the South was a free and independent
            nation. In an article titled “What shall Be Done for a Revenue? The following
            statements were made:

            That either revenue from
            duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be
            closed to importations from abroad,…If neither of these things are done, our
            revenue laws are substantially repealed: the sources which supply our
            treasury will be dried up (emphases added): we shall have no money to carry
            on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn
            is ripe….Allow realroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten
            per cent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think laying on imported
            goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would
            be supplied from the southern ports.

            From these statements and the
            facts already discussed, we can see that the North’s true motive for launching
            an invasion into the South was not one of high moral principles, but one of greed and fear of economic loss. Thus, Yankee
            imperialism launched an aggressive campaign to deny the people of the South
            their right to a government established upon the principle of the consent of
            the governed.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident
            that….Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
            consent of the governed….

          • Bill Marble

            Thank you for the pontification. I did not specify who/what caused the Civil War. You went off on that tyraid single handedly. The single fact you repeatedly make however is that the Federal governement, when it passes laws, takes from one group and gives to another. Hurt people 200 years ago. Hurts today. A terrible history of picking losers and taking freedoms from some or all of “We the People”.
            I stand corrected that Lincoln did not technically “end” slavery. But without his initiatives the 13th may not have occured. Thus he deserves credit the same as say MLK deserves credit within the overall civil rights movement.

          • pineapple

            “I stand corrected that Lincoln did not technically “end” slavery. But
            without his initiatives the 13th may not have occured. Thus he deserves
            credit the same as say MLK deserves credit within the overall civil
            rights movement.”

            You credit Lincoln with ending slavery when his Emancipation Proclamation excluded states that remained in the Union, and certain parishes in Louisiana that were under the control of Union troops.

            You also compare Lincoln, who started a war, resulting in over 600,000 deaths, with MLK, who advocated peace.

            Sorry, but i can not follow your convoluted logic.

            BTW, you misspelled tirade,

          • Bill Marble

            Typical. You are the type who focuses on small things (like tirade I misspelled on my cell phone). Your assumptions are what brought you to the conclusion I compared them, and thus had convoluted logic which apparently easily confounded you. I did not “compare” Lincoln and MLK, I used them as two examples of individuals who have been given credit for something. That does not mean they are “compared” or similar. They are simply examples. And we know Lincoln advocated not changing slavery in existing slave states. But that line goes contrary to the argument of your Harvard professor’s economics theory that slavery was not an issue, but rather that the Civil War was over economics. So thank you for bringing it up. We thus agree that our government has a long history of taking from one group (often wrongly in some people’s minds) and giving to others.
            So States today which pay more have a right to leave the Union? And without the North forcing the South to remain in the Union (clearly implied to be wrong in your text), the South would have been exempt from the 13th, and thus slavery by the Democrats of the South would have continued. Nice side of the argument you are on.

            But allow me to confuse you further with some simple word associations.

            Einstein – bombing Hiroshima
            Mandela – ending apartheid
            Portuguese – early slave trade

            These, much the same as the example I used where Lincoln relates to slavery ending and King relates to civil rights, are simply word associations. They do not need to have anything in common, but each can be associated with the second word or term.

            My apologies for confusing you into thinking I said Lincoln and MLK were comparable, which I clearly did not.

            You should end now and decide how or when the South would have ended slavery on their own since they were clearly arguing for expanding slavery to the new territories being added as States.

          • pineapple

            “My apologies for
            confusing you into thinking I said Lincoln and MLK were comparable, which I
            clearly did not.”

            Apology accepted.

            The purpose of my
            posts was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of Lincoln and the North
            concerning the subject of slavery.

            “You should end
            now and decide how or when the South would have ended slavery on their own
            since they were clearly arguing for expanding slavery to the new territories
            being added as States.”

            According to
            Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, slavery would have been okay in the new
            territories, since his proclamation applied only to states that seceded from
            the Union, and exempted states that remained in the Union, such as Kentucky,
            West Virginia, Missouri, and parishes in Louisiana that were under the control
            of Union troops..

            If slavery is
            wrong in one state, why is it not wrong in all states?

            Slavery would have
            ended in the South when mechanical cotton pickers were implemented, just as
            many jobs have been made obsolescent by automation.

            Speaking of
            emancipation proclamation,

            at the beginning of the civil
            war, General Fremont issued an emancipation proclamation to free the slaves in Missouri.

            Abraham Lincoln ordered him
            to rescind this proclamation, because Lincoln
            was afraid it would antagonize Kentuckians who were considering seceding form
            the union.

            General Fremont refused to
            rescind his emancipation proclamation, and Lincoln fired him. (See “This Hallowed
            Ground” by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Bruce Catton)

            Later on, when it appeared
            that the South might win the war, Lincoln,
            issued his emancipation proclamation, hoping that slaves would rebel and
            require Confederate troops to be pulled from the front lines to quell the

            My point is that Lincoln is placed on a
            pedestal for ending slavery when, in fact, he used slavery to pursue his goal
            to hang onto power, while sacrificing over 600,000 American lives.

          • Bill Marble

            Oh poor poor Pineapple. You have such a hatred for Lincoln you cannot see straight. My apology was called sarcasm. I guess it needed to be a peer reviewed paper though for you to appreciate it. You are the one who erred by not reading the correct interpretation of my original comments of Lincoln and MLK. And now you expand you folly by expecting slavery would have ended with the automation of cotton machinery? You have no sense of reality sir. What of all the Hispanic migrant workers? They are still here, even with automation. A logic individual would presume that agricultural people of the South would have merely shifted their slaves from cotton to other agriculture as the country spread west. Your assumption that slavery would have ended of its own accord is clearly false.
            You are obviously well versed in Lincoln and the Civil War era, but you are equally obviously not capable of carrying on a civilized and thoughtful conversation on a subject which requires you to think your own original thoughts rather than regurgitate what others before you have written.

            And it can be argued that Lincoln “sacrificed” 600,000 lives not only to hold power as you say but also to preserve the Union. While his approach (war) might not have been your preferred method, both reasons can be seen as justifications even if you personally think one or the other is not warranted.

            This discussion was about the black Americans having their hands out. Even though others such as Hispanics and Vietnamese enter the country and work to improve. Freddie Gray was just one example of this You twisted it into a dialogue of your vitriolic hatred for Lincoln.

            Thus I end this conversation with you as I have a proverbial sock drawer to organize which is a more productive activity than conversing with you. Should you learn to apologize yourself for your own misinterpretations, and also learn to live and talk in the real world, let me know and we can discuss something else of worth and relevance to today’s situations.

          • pineapple

            In all of your meandering rants you never answered the following question: If slavery is wrong in some states, why is it not wrong in ALL states?

            Also, if the cause of the Civil War was due to slavery, how do you explain the following :

            When the Southern states
            threatened secession, Lincoln
            was asked why he didn’t just let the South go. He said: ”Let the South go? Let
            the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?”(See “Memoirs of Service
            Afloat” by Raphael Semmes.)

          • Bill Marble

            Excellent debate tactics Pineapple. Red herrings, obfuscation, avoidance of difficult answers. You have studied well “grasshopper”.

            I never said slavery was not wrong in all states. You added that false assertion.

            I did not give a cause for the Civil War (these are numerous) – you made that false assertion.

            Lastly, you again reinforce one of my earliest and most fundamental assertions – that government often makes bad decisions, and these are usually based on economics (money).

            Again, congrats on great legalistic debate tactics of never really answering a question but rather diverting the discussion to topics you can quote others on rather than add your own original thoughts.

            So when you get an original thought, or wish to refute my suggestion that governments tend to make poor decisions because they are after money (and power) we can chat again.

            Now that I have told you this twice I should not have to repeat myself again. Talk later when you can add original thought and clear answers rather than deflections.

          • pineapple

            You did an excellent job of describing your own tactics.

            You criticize me for quoting other historians.
            You should try it sometime. It’s bound to be an improvement over your usual “original” inane drivel.

            Get back to me when you learn how to spell.

          • Bill Marble

            We can all get a laugh at your circular discussion. I never tried to put words in your mouth, or text, as you have. I never criticized you for quoting others, but rather for failure to have an original thought. Thus we are at an impasse, where you deny you fail to provide any original thought, twist statements, misrepresent things stated in earlier text and then criticize me for pointing it out. Such a long list of things you refuse to answer directly I will write you off as an over educated (not in itself a bad thing) well versed in history (again, not a bad thing) but unimaginative individual who is so stuck on personal hatred of Lincoln that any discussion attempting to expand ideas is beyond your scope (a bad thing).
            Adios –

    • John Liberty

      “Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” – George Orwell.

      • ijohnc1

        This revolution will be needed to cleanse the country, it will be worse than war for independence, or the civil war, because there are more guns and people that really know how to use them.
        Having lived through the 50’s and 60’s era, they had there problems, but much more civility, then along came Johnson, one of the nations most corrupt presidents…enough said.

  • dufus

    We no longer have a media that is truthful and unbiased. Without Fox News we would not know half of what is truly happening in this country any longer. Corrupt media & corrupt government both covering each other’s asses while the law abiding citizen is victimized.

  • Susan Borden

    What does it take to imprison people who commit these crimes. He should never have been on the street. Build more prisons, that’s one answer.

    • Bill Meeker

      Susan is right. It’s a pity the young man is dead but surely he had more to contribute to society, other than keeping cops and prison guards employed. But the liberal system of putting criminals back on the street after multiple crimes is a threat to law abiding folks and here is yet another example that light, pleaded down sentences don’t get through to most criminals. For those without a moral compass, the threat of prison time needs to be great enough to discourage second and third incarcerations. I live in a Democrat run town and it never ceases to amaze me that a guy can show up in court as the defendant with 10 or 12 previous convictions … and be 22 years old! Clearly to many, crime does indeed pay.

      • John Liberty

        And Obama released 156,000 illegal criminals from jails, and he tells us he cares about the middle-class taxpayers? … EVIL deceit is rampant in his heart of racially driven corruption.

      • pineapple

        Crime does pay, but the problem is that it takes so much money to get elected.

  • j0e cave


  • Dondi Cook

    Dangerous substance? Was it K2 or Spice, …

  • John Liberty

    Just the kind of THUG that the “hood” produces, in every major city in America. No wonder the school drop-out rate is so high, the lunches are controlled by government, the teachers can’t teach to idiots or these mentally handicapped druggies. But we do see the “equality of results” that Socialism had bred. Then Liberals tell us that legalizing Marijuana is no harm to our society ??

  • Joey Smith

    You can read all about it by googling “Maryland judiciary case search” and typing in the name “Gray, Freddie, C”. You’ll get a few hits on his father there as well who has the same name.