Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' impact

Which means she wanted them caught for DOPE not with NOTHING. DEPRAVED HEART MURDER is what you get when reckless conduct leads to death. There is evidence enough to raise a question of fact, a question that can ONLY be answered by a JURY, the trier of fact. See that goes BEYOND a preliminary hearing because there is a question of fact raised. But then you don't understand recklessness so how can you be expected to understand what a preliminary hearing would or would not pass up?

Catch a case: To be charged with a crime. Its lawyer slang. You don't like my lawyer slang? Boo (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hoo, get a helmet sparky life's tough.

A policy from the city does however introduce a standard of care, a duty the officers had. If they did not abide by the duty and knew or should have known about such a duty, then they are guilty of negligence. That's kinda how negligence works. But then you wouldn't know that because you won't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing read for (*)(*)(*)(*)'s sake.

Was the driver aware: HEY NOW!!! You're trying to get it stopped at pre-trial you better shut your trap about these questions of fact you keep raising. All snark aside: That's a question to be answered at trial. Imagine that.

We're not in court dude. And I've been patient explaining this to you over and over. Now I'm just going to be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag because you annoy me and the questions you're asking have already been answered. I can only tell you the sky really is blue politely so many times before I just start (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with you.

Manslaughter requires negligence which not complying with a known policy WOULD BE. Whether or not they knew of the policy is a question FOR THE JURY. Prosecutors routinely start with the highest charge and move down, they don't start small and work up. Yet another sign of you not understanding how our system works.
As to evidence: We don't have all the evidence so what you and I are discussing except for the autopsy report leak and how the law works is opinion. Cool your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tits.

What don't you understand about questions of fact having to be answered by the jury?

2nd degree is reckless. If they took him on a rough ride the charge will stick. If not it will be lowered. What don't you understand about how this works? As to the other officers: They aint charged with depraved heart hoss and we've already discussed them. Have you been keeping up with this at all?

Since she didn't charge them with 1st degree and instead used 2nd and neg it serves her case just fine so far. Again, as stated.

And if there was a policy in place to buckle the children in but such was not complied with guess what would happen? That's right someone would get charged. See how that works?

 

There is no evidence to support the charges and evidence to the contrary.

Did you happen to listen to the Kelly File tonight and the discussion of the evidence that was released and statements from people close to the investigation (and apparently getting tired of this DA and her bias). They have the statement of the other detainee and he states that Grey was trying to hurt himself, banging his head on the dividing wall and acting crazy and screaming. And he told them as he did in his CNN interview there was no rough ride. The officers stories have all held up.

What evidence points to their guilt? The ONLY other person in the van, the ONLY witness clears them officers. NOTHING that is known about this points to a criminal charge and the DA is trying as hard as she can to keep the evidence from public view. She needs to be removed and a DA who is not biased who is not looking out for their own fame and reputation and future be put in place and conduct a fair and honest evaluation of the evidence and if it ain't there drop the charges. We don't take people to trail just to see what a jury thinks about the evidence. The DA has to convince a judge of the PROBABILITY of a conviction. These officers have rights just like you and me if charged with a crime.

Obviously more than you, a DA goes to trial with the full belief they will get a conviction, not just to test theories in front of a jury.

 

This evidence being?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ing-against-the-walls-for-help-not-harm.html#
He told a tv station in baltimore he "only heard a little banging". How does he know he was banging his head? He couldn't SEE HIM. He could only hear. And he claims he "only heard a little banging". This guy is about as reliable a witness as the "hands up don't shoot" guy.
His testimony will have to be weighed by a jury. I doubt they'll put a lot of weight on him since he's changed his story so many times now and mysteriously got off charges.

The fact that he died from a snapped neck while hogtied and not seat belted does in fact point at the very least to negligence. Especially when you look at the forensic evidence leaked with the partial autopsy. But then I've tried explaining this to you over and over.

And she more than likely will. You don't really know how the game is played and you won't listen to me explain basic legal definitions that you could look up for yourself to verify the veracity of, so I'm not going to take the time to explain to you how the game is played since you'll simply ignore whatever I say and continue in your own ignorance.

 

It points to no such thing. The video of the other guy saying he's banging his head and acting crazy will sink the prosecution.

 

The same guy who has changed his story multiple times? The same guy who couldn't even see the deadman but seems to know which body part was banging around? The same guy who got arrested but was pulled out to speak directly with detectives and then released with no charges? That guy? I think not.

What does the forensics say? That is what will decide the case. So far the forensics points to at least negligence and this flaky witness doesn't hold a lot of weight after changing his story.

 

Already cited.

His contemporaneous statement to the police investigators is what will be entered as evidence, not his subsequent statement to a reporter. And that was that he was making a racket and banging his head against the separating wall, was standing up doing so. And if you really want to use that interview he states there was NO rough driving.

No it doesn't. And certainly NOT criminal negligence. He was being violent, he was being belligerent and if it would have endangered an officer to attempt to buckle him in as I have heard several officers state so be it, lay him on the floor.

Your attempted explanations fall far short of facts and all you do is confirm the reasonable doubt.

Spare me your bluster for lack of evidence and your erroneous attempts to explain legal definitions. The fact is the DA has over charged where in all likelihood no charges should every have been filed and now she is trying to make a showcase out of this for her own career advancement. That you don't understand this is even more telling that your lack of understanding of the judicial process and justice.

Here is the evidence at hand

Autopsy - accidental death
Witness - he was up and active and banging his own head and no rough driving.

Put it before a judge in a preliminary hearing and the DA has nothing with which to proceed to trial.

 

Yes the autopsy which we've already established does not harm the prosecutions case at all.

O you think his public statements won't be used to discredit him when he takes the stand?
How did he know it was grays head? How did he know he was standing up?

No rough driving: Was he buckled in? Or was he hogtied on his face? Because that would change one's estimation of the ride.

Being violent? He could barely walk when they took him to the wagon. He wasn't beligerent at all. Where have you seen the claim that he was belicose when they were putting him in the wagon? In fact why don't you just go watch the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tape? And it STILL doesn't excuse them from following dept policy. There were 6 of them there, you telling me you don't think they could take a guy in handcuffs and hold him in a seat long enough to buckle him in? And you think THATS going to fly in court?

No you have to convince the JURY that you HAVE reasonable doubt. They'll have to trust the witness. Juries don't tend to trust witnesses who change their stories.

Look up: Depraved heart murder, recklessness and negligence in Blacks Law Dictionary or the codes for Maryland if you don't believe me. But then you won't do that either. I can lead you to water but I can't make you drink.

Autopsy: Ruled that a person did not snap his neck, not that a person's conduct couldn't have led to his death. What part about that is so hard to understand?
Witness: So he could see the man that he might be believed when he says "banging his head" or "standing up"? Is he superman to see through steel walls? No he only HEARD and SUPPOSES. And he has changed his story. Witness: Unreliable.
Remember hands up don't shoot? How'd that flaky witness work out?

 

Ahh, accidental death, no murder in the 2nd degree, no murder at all. And proves nothing to the assertion any injuries were intentional or the fault of anything the police did.

Didn't pay attention to the Ferguson thing did you. His CONTEMPORANEOUS statement to a police investigation is what the jury will hear and weight as evidence even if a judge lets it get that far. NOT his statements after the public narrative was created and he knows he faces community scorn unless he supports that narrative. In fact if he ever gets to the stand his attorney will tell him to drop that false story else he faces prosecution for lying to a police investigation.

Oh lots ways, by the location of the banging for instance, was it high against the wall, did it move around on the wall he says Grey was yelling about hurting himself.

Yep no rough driving according to the witness, what do you or the DA have to prove otherwise?

Yes according to the witness, what do you have to refute it.

You don't know that he could "barely walk" just because he REFUSED to walk.

Before that and during the ride and he had a history of being belligerent during his many arrest.

Where have I claimed it was only while they were putting him in the wagon.

Refute the witness statements with evidence not your suppositions and baseless conjecture.

Why don;t you watch your language and try to have an adult discussion? Or is it getting that difficult for you?

Sure it can, policy is not law.

At various times. So what? Only one can be trying to lean over and around him trying to buckle him in when he if fighting and resisting and being belligerent endangering someone trying to do so.

Inside a crammed van, yes and they jury will weight that if it ever gets that far and weight that on the danger the officer face and the position Grey put himself into by not cooperating and resisting the efforts to take him into custody.

You have to convince a judge you have a probability of conviction first. Then the prosecution has to prove there is no reasonable doubt. The jury starts with that, it's up to the prosecution to convince them otherwise NOT the other way around.
They'll have to trust the witness. Juries don't tend to trust witnesses who change their stories.

If there is a point you wish to make with them then copy and paste the relevant part and we will discuss, IF you can remain civil in the matter.

Autopsy: Ruled that a person did not snap his neck, not that a person's conduct couldn't have led to his death. What part about that is so hard to understand?

He doesn't have to see him.

There contemporaneous statements to investigators were taken as evidence and subsequent statements to the media ignored.

 

If you would simply look up exactly what depraved heart murder is you'd know that accidental deaths can satisfy it. As I've told you. Several times now.

Yes how DID that "hands up don't shoot" narrative from that flaky witness hold up? Not so well huh? Thanks for proving my point.
You also understand he can be quizzed about it on cross ex and utterly butt(*)(*)(*)(*)ed on the stand "Mr. Allen is this your statement made to x news outlet on Y day" "Yes" "Would you read it for us" "reads a statement that contradicts his testimony". "Mr allen why would you give such a statement in the media, stirring up riots etc, when you'd already given this other statement to police" "well it was in my interest to do so" > Credibility gone.

See above regarding his lack of credibility.

Hey genius: We're still waiting on the evidence. I've got no idea what the DA has. See now I KNOW you're not reading a damn thing. I've never said they DID rough ride him, I've only mentioned that IF they DID they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ED. Try reading.

The (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tape that shows him getting loaded into the van barely able to walk much less cause a problem for 6 officers while in handcuffs so much so that they would be in danger if they tried to buckle him the (*)(*)(*)(*) up according to dept policy.

Either way the tape shows he was not violent. Claim disproven.

Buckling up occurs at the beginning of the ride. He wasn't resisting violently when they put him on his face instead of buckling up. Claim still disproven.

O my bad I thought you wanted to talk about something that mattered to the case. Here you are just (*)(*)(*)(*)ting out your mouth. Don't let me stop you.

You DO remember there is video of him being loaded up, right?

Since you won't read anything I write, including simple legal definitions you might look up for yourself to verify, we are not having a discussion. I'm beating you in public like a recalcitrant mule. What's wrong, do the scary asterisks trigger your delicate lilac scented feelings? ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
^^ Did you pee your pants?

Sigh. This is where you need to have some understanding of the law to understand why a policy imposing a duty of care of the cops being violated would be cause for legal action. Negligence. Hey wait haven't we discussed this before? O wait we DID! You just didn't read. Again.

1 to buckle, 1 on each limb and the ones on the arm can hold the head so he can't bite. They had plenty of officers to pull that off at the initial arrest. Policy demanded they do so. They failed to do so. That would be the rub. As I've explained to you for perhaps the 9th time now.
You've never seen someone stuck into a restraint chair or forcibly stuck in a police cruiser have you?

O yeah that deadweight act (you're calling it an act) was REALLLLLL dangerous

You have to convince the judge that you have questions of fact that can only be settled by the jury, the trier of fact. This case has enough to see a jury. As discussed now multiple times.

I've already explained to you what each of those is. You can't even be bothered to look up the simple definitions before showing up here to show your ass? No we can't have a discussion because you are willfully ignorant of what you're talking about. I wouldn't discuss this with some rabid liberal who refused to read the law before posting, why would I discuss it with a rabid whateverthehellyouare who has done the same? Particularly after I explained it to you multiple times?

He does if he's going to make definitive statements like "he was banging his head" and "he was standing up" rather than "I heard him banging something" and "sometimes the banging came from the top of the retaining wall">> Neither of which harms the case of the prosecution.


Sure they were ignored I'm sure no one on the jury had seen them or considered the discrepancy even one time.

 

Ha, so the guy in the van, that I named Tom, is on video saying Freddie was trying to hurt himself in the van, lol.

Black lives matter!

 

And the autopsy report gives evidence of a "depraved heart" where exactly? Your evidence of a depraved heart at all is where exactly?

Ahhh he was a accomplice to the crime. The fact will remain the contemporaneous statements to investigators of the only witness support the defense.

See the above and it is the PRESECUTION that desperately needs his testimony to prove THEIR case not the other way around. Another fact that seems to escape you.

And the one witness says nope they did not.

It does NOT show he was incapable of walking, it shows he was not simply not doing so as officers have stated he never did when he was arrested. He was trying to be difficult and resisting but if you look you see him move his legs during that loading.

"It turns out that Mr. Gray “tested positive for opiates and cannabinoid.” Moreover, he carried on wildly when initially placed in the police van. It had previously been widely reported that he was not belted into his seat, a violation of recently adopted Baltimore police policy that Mosby dubiously makes the plinth of her case. The Sun’s latest dispatch, however, indicates that Gray was making matters difficult for the police: “yelling and banging, ‘causing the van to rock,’ the autopsy noted.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...t-deals-blow-murder-charges-andrew-c-mccarthy

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420274/freddy-gray-autopsy-report-deals-blow-murder-charges-andrew-c-mccarthy"

See above.

See above.

Which is not a video of the entire event is it.

Your faux bravdo does not evidence make.

Policy is not law, what don't you understand here?

See above.

See above.

I'm not trying the case but it will be up to the prosecution to show things, like guilt. And the first person they will have to show it to is the judge who will then decide if it should continue to a trial or be dismissed for lack of evidence and so far the evidence at hand does not make a very good case.

I always find the weaker a persons case is the more bromides and platitudes they tend to rely on, thanks for proving my point.

He does if he's going to make definitive statements like "he was banging his head" and "he was standing up" rather than "I heard him banging something" and "sometimes the banging came from the top of the retaining wall">> Neither of which harms the case of the prosecution.

If they were proper jurors they would know the difference and know which statements to consider in their deliberations ignoring the others. Hope you are never on a jury as you seem incapable of both.

 

I'm going to go ahead and say asked and answered now multiple times for each query.

 

Should be an interesting week. I'm seeing protest gatherings already starting on Twitter