The incident was in February 2013, and the decision not to file charges in late January 2016. In short:
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
update: Freddie Gray apparently chased himself, arrested himself illegally, then drove himself in a van and bounced his own head against the side hard enough to break his own neck, then never got medical help for himself! move over, houdini!!!!
it was ruled a homicide by medical professionals
Considered that he had 3 broken vertebra, crush injuries to his larynx, and had his spinal cord 80% severed in his neck, judged by the medical examiner as being the result of a "high-energy impact", doing it to himself would have been quite a trick.
I don't believe the officers intended to straight up kill Freddie Gray, but by giving him a 'rough ride' - ie having him shackled and hands and feet but not strapped into a seat / to the metal bench resulted in fatal injuries, and negligence that results in injury or death is still a crime.
GasBandit
Staff member
Who are not judges.
Dave
Staff member
The problem is that there were so many people involved it was extremely difficult to prove culpability on a specific individual. So the DA threw the book at all of them and tried to make things stick without sufficient proof to back it up. The main guys got acquitted because of this and the DA saw the writing on the wall. No need to put everyone (including the victim's families) through this when she knows that the result will be the same.
And those who were acquitted can no longer be tried for this. If more actual proof of individual culpability comes out, those for whom the charges have been dropped can still be tried.
It was a miscarriage of justice that the DA went in with all guns a-blazing instead of carefully building a case first. It was the rush to prosecute that ultimately did them in.
And those who were acquitted can no longer be tried for this. If more actual proof of individual culpability comes out, those for whom the charges have been dropped can still be tried.
It was a miscarriage of justice that the DA went in with all guns a-blazing instead of carefully building a case first. It was the rush to prosecute that ultimately did them in.
The system failed Marilyn Mosby, not the other way around.
Dave
Staff member
I'd say it was a mutual failure.
I'm sure this isn't the first time the police have put a suspect into a van without properly securing them into their seat. This is, however, one of the rare times when a fatal injury occurred.
1. They all failed to properly secure the suspect.
2. They all failed to obtain proper medical aid when the suspect requested it.
3. It's not clear that they intended him harm. Some witness statements suggest the first lapse was intentional, and if so at least some of them intended harm.
So, similar to Clinton's email server, the intent matters regarding culpability. Further, in this type of criminal case, the case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless the AG can prove that they (all, or specific individuals) intended to harm him, then all they can be found for is failure to follow proper procedure - which had a terrible result, but is not criminal under the law.
In our criminal code, negligence and omission are often insufficient to show criminal culpability. That's why most of our laws are geared towards commission of crimes, not omission of duties. There are very specific laws that cover some crimes of omission, such as parents neglecting their child's needs, but these are very weak and give the judges very wide latitude because many omissions are accidents, forgetfulness, and not with intent.
As such, the system does not provide justice for people like Freddie Gray, and it clearly fails them. Unless we want a society where crimes of omission without intent are prosecuted as strictly as crimes with intent then we are going to have to live with these kinds of injustices, and with people that get away with criminal activity merely because we'd rather see criminals on the street than innocent people behind bars. There's no such thing as 100% perfection, and the reality is that unless we designate one person to draw that line, there will never be a single goal we all want to achieve. We all have different perspectives, and we have to accept some latitude in the system if we want to have an inclusive society.
1. They all failed to properly secure the suspect.
2. They all failed to obtain proper medical aid when the suspect requested it.
3. It's not clear that they intended him harm. Some witness statements suggest the first lapse was intentional, and if so at least some of them intended harm.
So, similar to Clinton's email server, the intent matters regarding culpability. Further, in this type of criminal case, the case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless the AG can prove that they (all, or specific individuals) intended to harm him, then all they can be found for is failure to follow proper procedure - which had a terrible result, but is not criminal under the law.
In our criminal code, negligence and omission are often insufficient to show criminal culpability. That's why most of our laws are geared towards commission of crimes, not omission of duties. There are very specific laws that cover some crimes of omission, such as parents neglecting their child's needs, but these are very weak and give the judges very wide latitude because many omissions are accidents, forgetfulness, and not with intent.
As such, the system does not provide justice for people like Freddie Gray, and it clearly fails them. Unless we want a society where crimes of omission without intent are prosecuted as strictly as crimes with intent then we are going to have to live with these kinds of injustices, and with people that get away with criminal activity merely because we'd rather see criminals on the street than innocent people behind bars. There's no such thing as 100% perfection, and the reality is that unless we designate one person to draw that line, there will never be a single goal we all want to achieve. We all have different perspectives, and we have to accept some latitude in the system if we want to have an inclusive society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide - a homicide in which, through criminal negligence, people die. For example, not being buckled in to a moving vehicle despite it being departmental policy to do so. Not doing so is negligent, and resulted in fatal injuries. In Maryland, that's Statute 2-207 under Manslaughter and 2-210 under criminal negligence.
They intentionally didn't secure him so he would be thrown around as part of a Baltimore police tradition called a 'Rough Ride' though, as I said, they probably didn't intend to kill him, though the van ride absolutely resulted in his coma and death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_ride_(police_brutality)
The problem is that the officers weren't charged with negligent homicide, they were charged with 2nd degree murder, assault, and other charges that DO require intent. That's the prosecuting attorney's mistake.
If the officers involved had been charged with negligent homicide, the prosecution could have proven that the officers didn't follow regulation and buckle Freddie Gray in securely during transit, and that failing to do so resulted in his coma and death, which would follow the medical examiner's report. That's a viable charge.
They intentionally didn't secure him so he would be thrown around as part of a Baltimore police tradition called a 'Rough Ride' though, as I said, they probably didn't intend to kill him, though the van ride absolutely resulted in his coma and death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_ride_(police_brutality)
The problem is that the officers weren't charged with negligent homicide, they were charged with 2nd degree murder, assault, and other charges that DO require intent. That's the prosecuting attorney's mistake.
If the officers involved had been charged with negligent homicide, the prosecution could have proven that the officers didn't follow regulation and buckle Freddie Gray in securely during transit, and that failing to do so resulted in his coma and death, which would follow the medical examiner's report. That's a viable charge.
Last edited:
The Massachusetts law is fairly clear on involuntary manslaughter (ie, what you refer to when you say "negligient homocide"):
Involuntary manslaughter:
An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;
Definition of "unintentionally": The defendant did intend to commit the act that ultimately caused the death of the victim, but the defendant did not intend to actually cause the death itself.
Definition of "wanton or reckless conduct": Conduct which creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another person. An example is Russian Roulette.
It's not clear that they could prove than any one of the officers, or all of them, intended to commit harm to the person. They didn't secure him, but it's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they intentionally chose not to secure him in order to cause him harm.
It's not clear that being unsecured in a vehicle, in the absence of a crash, has a high degree of likelihood that substantial, ie life threatening, harm will come to the person who is unsecured. The possibility exists, certainly, but the possibility isn't very likely to result in substantial harm.
Thus even if the AG attempted to pursue such a charge, it's unlikely that they would have succeeded. Further, the public didn't want the police tried for "negligence". There's no way that charge would have made anyone happy, even if they were able to somehow prove intent and high likelihood.
There are no laws in that state that cover what the officers did, and if there were there'd be a lot more people behind bars, many of whom I suspect the public would judge shouldn't be there because most tragedies resulting from omission are accidents without intent.
Remove the requirement for intent and the criminal cases would explode.
Involuntary manslaughter:
An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;
Definition of "unintentionally": The defendant did intend to commit the act that ultimately caused the death of the victim, but the defendant did not intend to actually cause the death itself.
Definition of "wanton or reckless conduct": Conduct which creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another person. An example is Russian Roulette.
It's not clear that they could prove than any one of the officers, or all of them, intended to commit harm to the person. They didn't secure him, but it's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they intentionally chose not to secure him in order to cause him harm.
It's not clear that being unsecured in a vehicle, in the absence of a crash, has a high degree of likelihood that substantial, ie life threatening, harm will come to the person who is unsecured. The possibility exists, certainly, but the possibility isn't very likely to result in substantial harm.
Thus even if the AG attempted to pursue such a charge, it's unlikely that they would have succeeded. Further, the public didn't want the police tried for "negligence". There's no way that charge would have made anyone happy, even if they were able to somehow prove intent and high likelihood.
There are no laws in that state that cover what the officers did, and if there were there'd be a lot more people behind bars, many of whom I suspect the public would judge shouldn't be there because most tragedies resulting from omission are accidents without intent.
Remove the requirement for intent and the criminal cases would explode.
That's actually not true. While Maryland has a Manslaughter statute (2-207), it does not define manslaughter in the statute. It's a common law (created by cases) crime and can be voluntary or involuntary depending on intent. Generally, under the common law in Maryland, involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another unintentionally while doing an unlawful act (not a felony), a negligent act, or by negligently failing to perform a legal duty. Such as, say, a police regulation about securing suspects for transport in a moving vehicle. A regulation that was put in place due to the number of incidents of prisoners being injured in transit due to being not secured.
Examples:
In 2004, Jeffrey Alston was awarded $39 million after becoming paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a ride in a Baltimore police van.
In 2005, Dondi Johnson Sr., a plumber, was arrested in Baltimore for public urination. Apparently uninjured at the time of his arrest, Johnson emerged from the police van paralyzed with a broken neck, and died two weeks later from pneumonia resulting from his injuries. Johnson stated he had been thrown face-first into the interior of the van during a sharp turn. His family sued the Baltimore police and were awarded $7.4 million, which was reduced to $219,000 under a cap imposed by Maryland state law.
In 2012, Christine Abbott, a 27-year-old assistant librarian at Johns Hopkins University, was arrested at a party she was hosting at her home in Baltimore's Hampden neighborhood. She was handcuffed and put into a police van. Abbott later sued the officers in federal court, describing her ride as "like a roller coaster", and accusing the officers of braking short and taking "wide, fast turns" which slammed her into the walls. Police acknowledged that Abbott was not buckled in during her ride.
So that's three cases in recent history that resulted in major lawsuits against the Baltimore police, and you're gonna tell me that they couldn't have known that an unsecured suspect was at risk for serious injuries?
Last edited:
Well now we're talking about a completely different animal here.
The criminal code I was referring to is here: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/massac...y-manslaughter-and-motor-vehicle-homicid.html
The cases you're referring to are not criminal cases. They are civil suits brought against the city, not criminal suits brought against the officers.
Civil suits can be won based on "preponderance of evidence" which is a lower bar than criminal which is "beyond reasonable doubt." There are lots of criminal cases that don't end in convcition where a later civil case with no more evidence does win, but "justice" - if it occurs at all - can often only be extracted in terms of financial penalties.
Not sure why you keep going for Massachusetts laws in a Maryland case. Involuntary manslaughter is the criminal charge used for negligent homicide in Maryland.
If a police department has been REPEATEDLY found liable for causing injuries due to negligence in securing suspects, and institutes new regulations regarding securing suspects for transit, is it that much of a stretch of an imagination to find that failing to secure a suspect and the resulting injuries cause his death constitute criminal negligence? Is it reasonable to think that, since there were enough cases to result in new regulations, the officers would have to be aware than there is a substantial risk of serious injury to unsecured prisoners?
If a police department has been REPEATEDLY found liable for causing injuries due to negligence in securing suspects, and institutes new regulations regarding securing suspects for transit, is it that much of a stretch of an imagination to find that failing to secure a suspect and the resulting injuries cause his death constitute criminal negligence? Is it reasonable to think that, since there were enough cases to result in new regulations, the officers would have to be aware than there is a substantial risk of serious injury to unsecured prisoners?
My fault. My brain keeps mistaking Boston and Baltimore for some reason.
If a police department is found civilly liable for injuries sustained for not following procedure, then it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be be found criminally guilty.
Civil and criminal law are very, very different, for very good reason.
If a new law needs to be made that would hold them criminally liable, then they can thenceforth be held criminally liable. But until the law changes, then you can't prosecute criminally using the civil level of evidence required.
Civil case precedence bears little pressure on criminal law interpretation, so until there's court precedence that reinterprets one or more of the three requirements for manslaughter in Maryland, then it simply cannot apply to this case.
"It's not clear that being unsecured in a vehicle, in the absence of a crash, has a high degree of likelihood that substantial, ie life threatening, harm will come to the person who is unsecured. The possibility exists, certainly, but the possibility isn't very likely to result in substantial harm."
Except that the department has a history of expensive lawsuit settlements and incidents to show that it does incur such a risk. Particularly glaring since the department had recently instituted new regulations about securing prisoners.
The department would have to be aware that not securing a prisoner put said prisoner at risk of serious injury. That means that officers who did not secure a prisoner for transit, despite regulations over that very thing, were negligent in their legal duty to a suspect in custody. Their negligence resulted in injuries that caused the suspect's death. Failing to perform a legal duty, particularly one that concerns safety, leading to a death, is most certainly criminal negligence.
Except that the department has a history of expensive lawsuit settlements and incidents to show that it does incur such a risk. Particularly glaring since the department had recently instituted new regulations about securing prisoners.
The department would have to be aware that not securing a prisoner put said prisoner at risk of serious injury. That means that officers who did not secure a prisoner for transit, despite regulations over that very thing, were negligent in their legal duty to a suspect in custody. Their negligence resulted in injuries that caused the suspect's death. Failing to perform a legal duty, particularly one that concerns safety, leading to a death, is most certainly criminal negligence.
You keep repeating yourself. You're suggesting that repeated civil convictions should set legally binding precedence for criminal law.
They don't. It may seem to you like they should, but there's a huge gulf between civil law and criminal law that prevents even a huge number of successful civil suits from influencing criminal law.
They don't. It may seem to you like they should, but there's a huge gulf between civil law and criminal law that prevents even a huge number of successful civil suits from influencing criminal law.
And my point is that given how the department was frequently found liable for injuries caused by not securing prisoners, there's no way they could claim they didn't know that not securing a prisoner put them at risk of injury. So it's either negligent, or intentional. And since intent can't be proven in this case, negligence can be.
repeated civil convictions and installing new regulations about this, however, can be used to show the officers were clearly aware of the fact they had to secure the victim, and failed to do so. You forgetting to check that your 8 year old is buckled in, as he usually does, may be negligent, but definitely not criminally so. Officers of a polcie corps that has repeatedly been found lacking in this aspect, with new regulations and an awareness campaign, can be considered to have been aware of their duties beyond any reasonable doubt. As such, not securing him could be seen as criminal negligence. Null doesn't seem to be saying this is a legal necessity by precedent, he's saying it should - and would - have made a fairly good and solid reasoning to bring that charge. It is unreasonable to assume these officers weren't aware that not securing the victim could result in serious injury.
Negligence in criminal law is still held to a higher bar than civil law. Just knowing that it happened in the past may not be enough. Just knowing that regulations may have been tightened may not be enough. And it may all go out the window if they transport thousands of suspects unsecured in the van yearly and there's evidence of less than a one in a thousand chance of even winning a civil case.
Further, there's also the choice between securing someone who is resisting and possibly harming them during the process to secure them, and leaving them unsecured - in other words it's possible that the choice to leave them unsecured is the result of other cases where excessive force complaints were levied just because the officers had a duty to secure the suspect.
So which civil cases should they give priority?
Look, you might be right - maybe the civil cases should provide evidence of negligence, but my reading of the law doesn't suggest that this is the case. I'm not a lawyer, though. I suppose if the AG thought they'd be able to succeed with such prosecution they'd try it with at least one of the officers to try and make it stick. My guess is they didn't try because they knew it wouldn't stick. Perhaps I'm wrong, either about them, or the prospect of winning that case.
Further, there's also the choice between securing someone who is resisting and possibly harming them during the process to secure them, and leaving them unsecured - in other words it's possible that the choice to leave them unsecured is the result of other cases where excessive force complaints were levied just because the officers had a duty to secure the suspect.
So which civil cases should they give priority?
Look, you might be right - maybe the civil cases should provide evidence of negligence, but my reading of the law doesn't suggest that this is the case. I'm not a lawyer, though. I suppose if the AG thought they'd be able to succeed with such prosecution they'd try it with at least one of the officers to try and make it stick. My guess is they didn't try because they knew it wouldn't stick. Perhaps I'm wrong, either about them, or the prospect of winning that case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
The question I see being argued is probably more one of "Does a law actually need to be passed to make these folks do their job correctly?" And the answer to that one, of course, is "no."
--Patrick
The question I see being argued is probably more one of "Does a law actually need to be passed to make these folks do their job correctly?" And the answer to that one, of course, is "no."
--Patrick
Very broadly speaking, yes. Specifically in this case, though, we're arguing over whether the officers should be held criminally liable for not strictly following regulations.
Of course, the reality is that people want the police to follow strict regulations in cases like this, but when a motorist is stopped and doesn't obey orders they want the police to de-escalate the situation rather than following the regulations to secure themselves and others around them, often by securing, by force, the person not in compliance with their requests. And in sleepy rural towns without lots of crime and poverty they have the freedom to choose alternatives. In busy metropolitan areas with a great deal of crime and poverty, where officers literally wade through shit and blood daily, and have to handle a dozen problems before lunch or else they'll lose their position, they don't have that luxury.
It's just such a messy business, I could never handle it. Way too subjective, and you have to make snap decisions with little to no information - and often bad information. Not only that, but the wrong decision could cost you or another's life.
I don't know if you guys are aware, a police officer was sentenced to six years in prison for the attempted murder of Sammy Yatim just recently. Former constable Forcillo is on bail while he appeals the conviction, but people are hoping it'll set a precedent for cops to exercise more restraint in the future.
I kinda doubt Canadian precedent will affect the U.S. much if at all, but it's good that Canada is attending to this kind of thing.
By the way, if you don't know the story, Officer Forcillo actually shot and fatally wounded Sammy Yatim with 3 bullets (one to the heart) and then shortly after, while Sammy was on the ground, Forcillo shot him six more times.
He was acquitted of the murder charge laid for the fatal shots. He was convicted of attempted murder for the following six shots. It boggles my mind, but I think justice is being done.
Blah, forgot to place 'Canada' somewhere in those sentences.
It's there if you know where to look for it.
--Patrick
I wouldn't rely on that too much as a heuristic, though: Constable#United_States on Wikipedia
So again, what does it take for a cop to shoot a black man and have to face trial, let alone jail time?
http://www.local10.com/news/no-char...i-police-commander-in-charles-kinsey-shooting
Edit: Was wrong about facts.
http://www.local10.com/news/no-char...i-police-commander-in-charles-kinsey-shooting
Edit: Was wrong about facts.
Last edited:
Did you read the article you linked? The cop who shot the social worker is the one going on trial.
Man, I read it multiple times to try to not misread it and I still failed.