Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So, he was in police custody, and he ended up with fatal injuries, and it's ruled a homicide,

Those are the facts. However, we don't even know, unless you have some new info, how he received the injuries.

No, we don't. But when someone is in police "custody", the police are by definition responsible for their welfare.

. . . meaning that the death was at the very least avoidable. At the very least it looks like a lot of negligence on the part of the officers involved (eg: if he was hitting himself, why did no officer exercise duty of care to stop him?)

That's all speculation.

But not ex nihilo - based on observable facts: He was in custody when he gained the injuries. The ME has declared it a homicide. If he did not do it to himself (which the police should have stopped), then who else did it? And if it was not homicide, why aren't we seeing the ME getting all the flak, rather than the prosecutor (why should she not pursue a case when an ME gives a Homicide COD?)

I know what the allegations are - that he was (contrary to Baltimore PD rules) taken on a "rough ride". The timing and route for the vehicle suggests they did not take him straight to the station. He was not buckled in, as he should have been. Now, a court may not accept those as facts, but so far it seems there is something to it. Do you have an alternative theory?

I'm waiting for facts, which seems to be a quaint notion.

We have enough facts to know that the police had some responsibility. Whether or not it is criminally culpable will come out in due time.

I have not ascribed it to race. The racial make-up of BPD does not even mean they can't have prejudicial policies, but even so the issue is that a human being died, following a period in police custody, and the police started off denying anything before evidence started to emerge contradicting them.

I am not counting anything the DA says as factual until it withstands scrutiny in a court of law. My opinion (and that's all it is) is that she seems more bent on achieving political popularity (so far) than establishing the truth.

Like no other DA/prosecutor in the history of American jurisprudence, ever [/sarcasm]

Policing rough areas is difficult, I know. But if the police are just another violent gang, it doesn't help in the long term.

That's an allegation for which you adduce no evidence. I suspect they are not as bloodthirsty as the Bloods and the Crips, who don't have much in the way of restraint.

Maybe they are not. But they are charged with upholding the law, protecting the public and keeping order. So if they are even a less-violent-than-the-Crips gang, the gap in public trust is still a big problem.

"If <statement>" is not an allegation, by the way, it's a postulation. Have that as a free fact on me.

Yeah, how awful of her to fail to get any charges to stick... Oh - the grand jury upheld most of them.

Wow! Nice work!

I mean, who would expect such a thing . . . given there is no defense permitted?

It doesn't always happen though, does it? We've had similar cases before where a GJ has not upheld charges. So, umm, she's clearly not failing that much.

As for her comments, let's see if we can find any other prosecutors in the USA who have talked about getting "justice for" a homicide victim, and were not vilified for it. Will you claim such a thing never happens, when the victim is, for example, a photogenic young girl?

No, but I will claim no prosecutor ever says, "“I heard your call for no justice, no peace,but your peace is sincerely needed as I work to bring justice for (fill in the blank).”

Which seems to me to be an admirable sentiment: calling for peace on the streets. And I have heard similar sentiments when crimes provoke public disorder, so as to reduce the disorder.

And no, the prosecutor's job is not to "get justice" for the accused.

Her job is to pursue justice. Period. She is not supposed to be in the vendetta business.

And she's not doing that. She is not carrying out any punishment, any more than a suspect for murder would endure.

And yeah, maybe that is hard for a prosecutor who will later have to work with the police, but perhaps the police could be more grown up about it too. Are they smearing the ME as well?

I don't know.

I think we'd know by now if they were. I tried googling and can't see anywhere where anyone is criticising the ME for his report. Without it, there would not be much of a case.

However, I can guarantee you this: they are charging innocent cops. Some of those 6 had nothing to do with it. They are fishing for a witness. Maybe that will work, but maybe it won't.

I bet that has NEVER happened when the chargees were not cops, but suspected gang members. NEVER. [/sarcasm]. However, there must still be some evidence to charge them with, or the grand jury would not have charged all 6.

I don't know, but were all of them present during his ride to the station (via several stops some distance out of the way)? Did all of them take part in checks

The problem: when some of the cops are found innocent, the previous riots will be "the good old days."

"If", not "when". It would depend on how things go, I suspect. If one is exonerated and the others are all found guilty and given appropriate sentences, maybe not. If any are found guilty, the police department needs to show it recognises the deepness of the problem.

The thing about the arrest and the knife seems marginal. But it's actually immaterial to the circumstances of his death: Even if he was a serial killer or a terrorist, once he has been arrested and his weapon(s) removed, the police have a duty of care, when he is in their custody. Indeed, the word "custody" implies guardianship.

No argument, except this: Ms. Mosby alleged "false arrest." If the knife was in fact illegal, then one of the pillars of her case is out the window. The prosecutors now say he was arrested before the knife was found. Good luck proving that.

The charges relating to that have been dropped, as I understand, and you claim you have no argument with me on "it's actually immaterial to the circumstances of his death", so why continue this line?

DAs and prosecutors charge for things and then drop them all the time, for various reasons (sometimes that evidence they were acting on is either rescinded or contradicted). Given that the main charges are still in force, it's not really a big deal - unless you want to make Mosby the story, rather than Gray.

I agree it's unprofessional. My speculation would be this is an order from the union. They're going to "show" the mayor and the city how much they have to lose.

On the other hand, when the mayor calls in the DOJ, it's pretty hard to expect the cops to act as if everything is "normal." And, frankly, it's hard for the crooks to miss the signal that the cops are under extra scrutiny so they can get away with more.

So, should we not investigate homicide-by-cop allegations?

If these cops are convicted, then the PD as a whole has been guilty of neglecting their job since the riots, just to score points against a prosecutor. And even now, with it being unproven, they are potentially doing that. Shameful.

I'll wager all 6 will not be. If any of them is, it will be for something very, very minor--nothing akin to "murder." Again, that's a guess. However, as this whole case smacks more of politics than anything else, I think I'm pretty safe in guessing that 2 or 3 of the officers are not in serious jeopardy.

Yes, those are all guesses. I've no idea if 0,1 or 6 will be found guilty, and I don't want to guess. So far, however, the issue remains that even if they did not commit a crime, a man died due to injuries sustained on their watch.

Wonderful post, even if it established nothing.

Well, the question is how did those injuries occur. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.2205179

For non-cop defendants prosecutors have dealt with problems of proof by using the felony murder rule, accomplice liability, and aiding and abetting theories.

Here is a discussion of the felony murder rule.http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/shoot ... ged-with-m

Here is an, uh, questionable decision of the California Supreme Court upholding a murder conviction based on aiding and abetting theory where defendant did not pull the trigger, it was not known who pulled the trigger, and the victims were his friends! http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... 10898.html

I am not overly sympathetic when cops get charged when a suspect has a crushed windpipe and a nearly severed spine while under their care. If the injuries could not have been self- inflicted by Gray or falling against something then someone caused those injuries and everyone else aided and abetted it unless they start explaining what happened. This would not even be a question for non-cop defendants. If a victim wound up dead after being in a room with several co-defendants, then all would probably be found guilty even it was not known who actually did it. In fact, the Aaron Hernandez murder trial was similar in that there was no direct proof that he committed the murder and there were two other people there.

Doctor Fate wrote:Wonderful post, even if it established nothing.

I guess you don't want to answer the questions in it, then. Fine.

freeman3 wrote:Well, the question is how did those injuries occur. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.2205179

For non-cop defendants prosecutors have dealt with problems of proof by using the felony murder rule, accomplice liability, and aiding and abetting theories.

Here is a discussion of the felony murder rule.http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/shoot ... ged-with-m

Here is an, uh, questionable decision of the California Supreme Court upholding a murder conviction based on aiding and abetting theory where defendant did not pull the trigger, it was not known who pulled the trigger, and the victims were his friends! http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... 10898.html

I think that this is important - if you have such laws, apply them without fear or favour. The police are not above the law, and we need them to be held to account. If you think felony murder or common enterprise or aiding and abetting laws should not apply to cops, then surely they should not apply to anyone else? Or are we giving part of the Executive branch of government more power and freedom than everyone else, and if so, why?

And this is what justice being blind means - treat all accused the same. Treat all victims the same. Apply the same laws in similar circumstances.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Wonderful post, even if it established nothing.

I guess you don't want to answer the questions in it, then. Fine.

Rhetorical and/or not helpful.

freeman3 wrote:Well, the question is how did those injuries occur. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.2205179

For non-cop defendants prosecutors have dealt with problems of proof by using the felony murder rule, accomplice liability, and aiding and abetting theories.

Here is a discussion of the felony murder rule.http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/shoot ... ged-with-m

Here is an, uh, questionable decision of the California Supreme Court upholding a murder conviction based on aiding and abetting theory where defendant did not pull the trigger, it was not known who pulled the trigger, and the victims were his friends! http://law.justia.com/cases/california/ ... 10898.html

I'm well aware of the felony murder law.

I think the problem the prosecution is going to face is this: when a prosecutor overcharges, he/she loses credibility with the jury. A grand jury is a separate matter altogether--which Danivon seems to be blind to.

I am not overly sympathetic when cops get charged when a suspect has a crushed windpipe and a nearly severed spine while under their care. If the injuries could not have been self- inflicted by Gray or falling against something then someone caused those injuries and everyone else aided and abetted it unless they start explaining what happened.

I'm not sympathetic either. Here's the problem: were all 6 involved? Were all 6 even aware?

This would not even be a question for non-cop defendants. If a victim wound up dead after being in a room with several co-defendants, then all would probably be found guilty even it was not known who actually did it. In fact, the Aaron Hernandez murder trial was similar in that there was no direct proof that he committed the murder and there were two other people there.

Again, no dispute. Please point me to the proof you have that all 6 were present and observed what happened.

We don't have the grand jury testimony, so I don't know what the prosecution has with regard to evidence against all 6. 1 is charged with murder and 3 with manslaughter--the 2 with lesser charges are presumably less involved. I don't know but I suspect that those 4 are tied to being in the van during the time Gray was being transported. As you said, juries don't like overcharging and I guess we'll see if you're right on that.

As for Danivon's assertion that the upsurge in violence is a response to rioting, well, it's setting a record--and none of it is due to the (alleged) "police gang."

The Baltimore Sun reports 35 people have been killed so far in May making it the deadliest month in Baltimore since December of 1999. Some say the 3-day surge of violence may be a sign of a police department stretched too thin.

Where are the protesters now? Where's Cool Al Sharpton? The New Black Panthers? The unity party of Bloods and Crips?

Doctor Fate wrote:As for Danivon's assertion that the upsurge in violence is a response to rioting, well, it's setting a record--and none of it is due to the (alleged) "police gang."

Aren't you telling us it's likely to be because the police are pulling back, as "ordered" by the union, so that they can make a point to the Mayor, the prosecutor and the Feds?

Riots tend to leave areas worse than they found them, and clearly the police are not re-establishing order (which suggests that the riot situation is actually still ongoing, really). Criminals take advantage, and people get more unsettled (and so more prone to react to perceived threats).

Where are the protesters now? Where's Cool Al Sharpton? The New Black Panthers? The unity party of Bloods and Crips?

Are these questions not just rhetorical and/or unhelpful?

I am fine with the police pulling out and letting the people who are rioting and saying the police are so evil see what happens w/o police.

Being a police office is difficult, and the disrespect and disobedience shown toward them is part of the problem. I have always said that if a police officer is guilty of a crime he/she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

The police deserve respect, and if they are not going to get, perhaps the populace should have to endure that lack of protection to see what they are missing.

I am sure that the agencies that the good Doctor listed have protection programs in place

bbauska wrote:I am fine with the police pulling out and letting the people who are rioting and saying the police are so evil see what happens w/o police.

Baby and bathwater springs to mind.

And what about the rest of the public, who did not riot, are law abiding but at greater risk from crime? Do you think they will thank the police for this moral lesson?

Being a police office is difficult, and the disrespect and disobedience shown toward them is part of the problem. I have always said that if a police officer is guilty of a crime he/she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Indeed they should. But what we are seeing across the US seems to be an erosion of trust in the police following a series of high profile incidents in which people have died.

The police deserve respect, and if they are not going to get, perhaps the populace should have to endure that lack of protection to see what they are missing.

Respect should not be automatic, it has to be earned and maintained. When lost, it is harder to regain.

Yes, being a police officer is hard. But it's harder when they have colleagues who undermine the public trust. That is not the fault of the public, is it?

Interesting, informative analysis of the 54 officers charged in fatal on- duty shootings the past ten years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/invest ... rosecuted/

Here is a discussion of how many people are killed by police.http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/14/ ... of-a-crime

Here is a discussion about how many police are killed each year.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... es-in-2014

By the way, here is an earlier article from the LA times which provides info on prosecutorial theories of the crime, which seemed at that point to be based on lack of a seat belt, not getting medical attention to Gray, and a 44 minute ride.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bal ... tml#page=2

So it appears that DA (at least at that time), was not basing its case on intentional use of force. So my suggestion that the seriousness of the injuries indicated some kind of blunt force trauma does not appear to be the line taken by prosecutors. But we'll see.

danivon wrote:Yes, being a police officer is hard. But it's harder when they have colleagues who undermine the public trust. That is not the fault of the public, is it?

Absolutely correct. When a police officer does wrong, I want him punished, and it should be done with the full support of those who worked with him or her.

When the public does things wrong (such as the riots in Baltimore), it should be those in the public that are calling for peace, and identifying those who are doing wrong. They should be reported to the police and sent to trial and punished to the fullest extent of the law. I have not seen much of that.

What I have seen is excuses made for wrong behavior. There is too much unemployment, not enough benefits, et. al. ...

Show me an instance of a person being turned in by a African- American in Baltimore for crimes during the riots. I can show instances of police being turned in by their co-workers...