Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact

Why was Freddie fleeing ?

The State AG was awful quick to charge the officers for false arrest.

Why did the AG refuse to release the knife that she said was legal and every cop who saw the knife said it was illegal. Lets see the knife, nope it's being hidden by liberals.

It sure took an awful long time for the autopsy to be released to the public. I wonder how many autopsies there were before the AG accepted one she liked ?

How can charges be filed for murder without an autopsy report ??? Something smells.

 

That'd be okay by me, although I think there should be an 'aggravated' or 'premeditated' adjective before RECKLESS. Otherwise, it's like saying "I thought I could hold his head underwater for 2 minutes without hurting him; he didn't tell me he had emphysema."

 

Well some have straps alone, some have dividers that are 6" or so tall between prisoners.

I see the plate metal (likely steel as you said) is a prevalent design.

There was a camera (though inoperable).

What I'm thinking is if I were in there loose how could I brace myself or what could I get my hands or feet on while hogtied.

Pictures of the specific unit will come out at trial and I'm ok with waiting.

Like I said it just seemed like some had seen pictures of that unit or It's specific design so I figured I'd ask.

Paddy wagons (probably not a PC name) have certainly undergone an evolution over the years.

http://baltimorecitypolicehistory.com/baltimore-police-history/patrol-paddy-wagons.html

 

You dont understand what any of those terms mean. Go look up each in black's law dictionary. Then we'll talk about it.

 

Refer to the diagram. This has a divided cab IE a wall of metal (steel or aluminum) between cells. That's why the other passenger only HEARD not saw what happened.

I think I'd try to stand up (more like squat up but you get the idea) get my butt on the bench next to the corner and wrap the belts around my hands while bracing my feet against the opposite bench. barring that i'd try to wedge myself in a corner and use my legs to exert pressure to maintain position.
If I was injured by swift decel (accidental) etc whlie doing so it would not excuse the officers who did not buckle me in, seatbelts being department policy and they would be negligent enough for manslaughter or negligent homicide. If they were rough riding me (ie purposefully trying to bang me around) their conduct would be reckless enough for a murder charge.

as to paddy wagon: I've got irish blood, I can say that But if you're not of the blood I demand reparations for you saying that awful hurtful word!!!!

 

An excellent and thoughtful post.

I too, am old enough to remember the riots of the 1960's. Having grown up in the Baltimore area, I can tell you definitively that what happened in Baltimore a few weeks ago pales in comparison to what happened there in 1968. There is no comparison. Whole blocks of Pennsylvania Ave and North were burned out (and stayed that way), as well as the east side neighborhoods above Fayette Street.

Despite the impression that the cable TV handwringers gave you, the "riots" in Baltimore this year were tiny by comparison. Nearly all of it was confined to an area of roughly four blocks, although there were individual incidents scattered around the city the first night. After the first night, police and police from surrounding municipalities and national guard handily outnumbered the relatively few protestors. I was at the site of the CVS looting the Thursday the indictements were handed down, and the cable TV people outnumbered the crowd, and the law enforcement outnumbered everyone put together by a very healthy margin.

There isn't going to be a race war. There wasn't one in 1968.

There won't be one now. At least, not unless the sort of folks who come on here and spew blatant bigotry and hint darkly about race wars decide to start one. But I'm betting that they are all loud mouthed cowards. beating their chests on the internet.

 

Yeah, exactly. Watts stays in my mind although there were probably around 10 of them all total in the 1960's. Our problems can be solved if we really want to solve them. But solving them will involve society as a whole and society must be willing to dig deep to find the root causes and then take action to correct and solve. This can't be done by the police alone, the black community alone or the white community alone. It has to encompass everyone and everyone must be willing to listen, learn and correct.

 

Do you know what 'either' means, as opposed to 'any'? And I do know what the terms mean, Sonny.

 

Who cares? That's why I said your post is irrelevant. One the cops had Freddie in custody, their DUTY was to keep him alive. That is not optional.

 

Then do explain why you cannot premeditate reckless conduct leading to death, Moony. Also do explain why aggravated is not applicable either.
When you do, define all 3 terms.

Okie dokie?

As to why I used any: You don't understand reckless, premeditated, or aggravated. That's 3, not 2. Tell me what either refers to Sparky.

 

Like what? It was an accident. A d especially the other officers.

Which should have no bearing at all.

Like what?

Based on what especially the five who were not driving the van.

What le did they break nd what evidence is there to support it.

We know this prosecutor over charged on the knife, it was illegal. The SHE had specifically requested the police have added surveillance of this exact street corner and arrest people engaged in suspicious drug behavior. That Grey had an extensive record if criminality and when arrested would go into his limp leg routine to make it hard on police to institute the arrest and would become belligerent. We know the other arrested person in the van heard him on the ithrside makinga racket and gave no statement as to any rough driving by the driver.

We now know why the prosecutor refused to release the autopsy, it refutes her case.

 

Why do you make that as a statement of fact when you have no evidence to support it?

- - - Updated - - -

And your evidence is?

 

Nation’s Leading Forensic Pathologist Refutes Baltimore Autopsy Conclusions…

You can smell the politics.

 

Because it is a fact: That would not excuse reckless or negligent conduct on the part of the officers. You'll note I did not say that such had occurred I merely commented on the law. You'll note from previous posts that my opinion is that reckless or negligent conduct occured. Res Ipsa Loquiter- the thing speaks for itself. Someone doesn't die of a high impact injury in the back of car that did not wreck if someone else was not reckless or negligent. I'm willing to see the entirety of the facts at trial, which this WILL need to go to because there are questions of fact which may only be resolved by the trier of fact.

 

Accidents do not excuse liability, criminal or tortious. It depends on the conduct. The conduct can only be ruled on by the trier of fact.

They shouldn't and if that was all the case stood on you'd have a point. But its not so you don't.

For negligence: Did the officers know or should they have known that they risked grivious injury to their passenger by not buckleing him in? Moreover at any point in one of the plethora of stops did they know or should they have known that Gray was in distress and in need of a meat wagon, not the decon/supervisor's car that was eventually sent to meet them at western HQ?
Since dept. policy is "buckle them the (*)(*)(*)(*) up" its a serious uphill battle to say "no I did not know nor should I have known that not buckling in my passenger could lead to serious injury".
Reckless (depraved heart murder 2nd degree): Did the officers take him on a rough ride? If so> Guilty.
These facts will need to be examined at trial, experts will need to be brought in and questioned (and both sides get their own), video if any from redlight cams, dash cams, etc will need to be reviewed. The autopsy will need to be presented in court. All of this done in front of the trier of fact, the jury. The jury will then decide what the facts entail and announce their decision.

Driver and co pilot can get the same charges. You're supposed to intervene if your partner is being a (*)(*)(*)(*) head. If the driver is determined to be a (*)(*)(*)(*)head the co pilot is determined to be a (*)(*)(*)(*) head as well for not stopping (*)(*)(*)(*)head number 1 (should (*)(*)(*)(*) head status be assigned of course. which will be done by the... .all together now...... wait for it.... wait for it..... jury)

As to the rest: Who put him in the van? See negligence. If they were negligent they can get charged.
If they said "treat this (*)(*)(*)(*)er rough he's an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" or something like that they can catch the case entire, rule of parties.
They probably won't though. But the drivers are probably (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

The other prisoner was arrested but taken directly to talk with a detective of homicide then released with no charges. I wonder why?
Yet another thing that only the jury can decide is what weight to put on testimony. Remember the michael brown case? Hands up don't shoot except he was lying his ass off? The same principle applies.
The key to his testimony? Was the witness buckled in or was he on the floor hogtied like gray? If he was on the floor hogtied like gray then his testimony will carry far more weight than if he was buckled in. Yet another thing to come out at trial. Sensing a pattern here bluesguy?

And your evidence for that is?

 

He has an ethical point, but I'd be far more interested in his opinion if he had examined the corpse himself.

 

This

is NOT a fact it is pure supposition on your part.

Well it certainly seemed like it, but I'll accept your statement otherwise.

Well make up your mind then.


What evidence supports that opinion?

Someone did and statements that something does not occur are as in this case just supposition. You will have to prove the driver willfully acted with reckless disregard and willful negligence.

So the evidence that supports that is what exactly?

No it doesn't NEED to if the proscutor clearly overcharged them for political reasons. We now see why she withheld the autopsy which is supposed to be a public record and why she is withholding evidence from the defense. She has no case especially with regard to the officers other than the driver. Tell me what is the case against them?

 

Or a judge if he determines the prosecution does not have the evidence to proceed. You see we are protected by the Constitution from unwarranted prosecutions.

What else is it standing on especially the other 5 officers?

There was no reason to believe and when the driver heard him in the back making a ruckus took steps to prevent him from continuing to do so. They are NOT responsible for the Grey's own actions.

The autopsy could not conclude, the other detainee said that during the last stops Grey was jumping around making a ruckus.

Policy is not law and as several officers I have heard discussing the officers safety comes into the equation and one officer attempting to buckle in a detainee can present a dangerous situation for the officer.

:

Only one officer was driving. Does he have a history of rough handling those he is transporting, none that I have seen. You got something? Did the other guy in the back state that the ride was rough, not that I read.

No they need to be examined now by the person who is supposed to take a blind look at it, the prosecutor. But obviously she is not blind in this matter and appears to be more concerned with her own fame. The next step should be a grand jury taking a look at it. And if they believe there is enough evidence to proceed then before judge in a preliminary hearing. We don't just put people on trial to see if there is enough evidence to convict them.

From what I read he was alone. So what charges should be brought against the other officers?

What is negligence in putting someone in a van? They were not along for the ride.

You would have to prove some control over the driver.

And again even this ME said it was an accident, that is NOT murder.

Same reason lots of people are released with no charges, heck Grey might have been released with no charges had he not acted as he did. More conjecture on your part.

Yes the forensics showed otherwise, in this case the forensics supports the witness.

The evidence is required to convict not acquit.

The pattern I see is the same as with the Martin case and the Brown case. I simply look at the evidence at hand while others engage in suppositions and conjecture and what if's and maybe's.

 

The autopsy and the context support my opinion. No you can't make a ruling off that but then that's not all the evidence and we'll have to wait for trial for all of that. With the rest of the evidence I can revise or refine my opinion as necessary.
Reckless yes you have to prove reckless intent. There is no charge of willful negligence if you're willful you're reckless. And after I explained both to you and everything.

She charged them for political considerations AND (remember the and from earlier? Do you even read the posts?) the fact that a man died from their care with a broken neck hogtied unseat belted in the back of a paddy wagon. That doesn't happen unless someone was reckless or negligent. It's an entire concept in American law.
The autopsy does not torpedo her case. It actually helps her case. But then I've tried to explain that to you as I've tried to explain recklessness and negligence and what you have to prove for each but you don't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing read. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

She's not withholding evidence from the defense, she's required to provide it before trial through discovery. If she doesn't it's a mistrial. So if you're right you should be happy.

 

Except there is enough evidence to present questions of fact which only a jury can decide on. Judge is trier of law not fact. What don't you understand about that?

Other 4. As explained the other cop in the front seat can catch what the driver catches.
Also as stated they can probably weasel out unless there's more evidence on them not released yet. Which is quite likely at this point because it's still in pretrial.


Dept policy is to buckle them in. Not following policy meant to avoid just this sort of thing IS negligence. It's not law but it establishes a standard of care and outs a duty on the officers to comply with the policy as part of their grant of authority from the city. Not doing so makes it rather difficult to get out of a neg charge.

You don't really get the process do you? Go Google it. I'll wait.

They. Didn't. Buckle. Him. In. According. To. Dept. Policy. That. Would. Be. Negligence. As. Stated. Multiple. Times. Now. Read. The. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing. Posts. Why. Don't. You?

No I'd have to prove that they asked and he did. They don't need mind control or blackmail just collusion. Which is not to say that's what happened but hey you asked about possibilities.

Which is why the jury has to weigh it. What don't you understand about a question of fact?

You still have to show how the autopsy torpedos her case which is your claim. We're not in a courthouse here hoss were on a forum having a discussion. Why in your opinion does the autopsy torpedo her case?


What evidence of forensics supports the witness? Do explain and cite it.

 

The evidence doesn't matter, they try and make claim about they base their opinions on the evidence but it is BS. This guy tried to defend the officer in Charleston who shot a man in the back who was fleeing from him.

 

No actually you are not making much sense. I could willfully NOT be reckless.

Sorry but you have no evidence to support your statement of fact here. He may have attempted to get off the floor, managed to do so and then the van took a curve and he fell and broke his neck. The other detainee heard him making a ruckus remember?

The autopsy says it was accidental, she has charged the driver with murder and there is NOTHING there to indict the other officers. Laying him on the floor and telling him to lay there until the get to the stations is not on it's face reckless nor negligent, especially a willful negligence or recklessness. What evidence do you have to show it was?

She's not withholding evidence from the defense, she's required to provide it before trial through discovery. If she doesn't it's a mistrial. So if you're right you should be happy.[/QUOTE]

 

What don't you understand about preliminary hearings? What don't you understand that the DA makes the first determination on whether there is enough evidence to charge in the first place.

And what evidence does she have to charge the driver with murder? And her charges against the others? The knife was illegal. SHE had made a specific request the police do extra ordinary surveillance of that particular corner and make arrest for drug sales.

What do you mean "catch" they weren;t playing pitch.

A policy just NINE DAYS OLD. Prior to that there was no such policy and a policy is not a law.

Not necessarily and depends on the particular case. For instance if he was being belligerent and any attempt to buckle a seatbelt on him would have endangered the officer attempting to do it.

AND was the driver even aware of the new policy? Had he been trained in it?

You really believe getting snarky improves your case?

That is NOT on it's face negligence and even if so would not amount to 2nd degree murder and even a manslaughter would have to show some willfulness to injury.

What don't you understand there is a LOT to go through before it hits a jury trial?

2nd degree murder is not accidental death. The autopsy says it happened in the van, so why are the other officers charged with anything?

It doesn't HELP her case, what are you missing here?

Where did I claim it did? Do cite it. HIS statement supports the forensic findings, that it occurred in the van, not before. His statements indicate Grey was moving about very physically instead of lying on the floor. He made no statements about the driving being erratic or rough. If Grey got up on his own volition and then fell during the ride he caused his own injury which resulted in his death.

You do know we put little kids in school buses without seat belts required.

So keep in mind, I won't get snarky and suggest you need to google it to educate yourself, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and it is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is at this point IMO plenty of reasonable doubt and the autopsy only feeds into that reasonable doubt.

 

"Defend" just pointed out your claims of fact were indeed just suppositions and conjecture just as in Ferguson and the Zimmerman shootings. As here I said we need to see all the evidence and not engage in conjecture in trying to convict the officers, And I don't recall that the officer in Charleston has been found guilty.

Your claim in Charleston was based on one thing, he was unarmed and therefore could not be shot while fleeing. Well the guy they just caught in New York was unarmed and fleeing and the officer shot him, so are you declaring that officer needs to be charged with a crime?

 

[/QUOTE]

Since you don't understand the definition of reckless as it pertains to criminal law yeah I probably don't make much sense. Now who's failing is that? Is it yours? It is? What's that lassie? Bluesguy should get on google and figure out the actual definitions of the terms he wants to bandy about? Yeah I think so too girl.

And if he was able to do so because he wasn't buckled in and the dept had a policy in place to stop such injuries (buckle your prisoners up) and the cops knew it but did not comply in any of the multiple instances they had a chance to buckle him up in? Negligence. Reckless if they purposefully tossed him around. This is an established legal principle that creates a rebuttable presumption and I tried to explain it to you earlier like I've tried to explain recklessness and negligence. But you don't read apparently. So now you get to use your googlefu weak though it is. You must exercise the googlefu Bluseguysan or it will remain feeble.

The autopsy ruled in an accident as in it was not the result of deliberate action IE no one came back there and snapped his neck. For like the 5th time now that would not mean (*)(*)(*)(*) to a charge of negligence or recklessness. Negligence: They didn't belt him in when there was a policy in place to belt them in to halt just this situation. Any cop who didn't buckle him in can catch that case. We've already spoken about the non-drivers. Several times in fact. Read. For the love of God read. I know it hurts your brain to do so but that's you learning stuff. Its a good thing.
Recklessness: depends on the remaining evidence (videos of the van, dashcams, testimony by experts as to forensics, full autopsy report etc. As (*)(*)(*)(*)ing discussed earlier. (*)(*)(*)(*)ING READ)