Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[bilby]

YES!!!

When a person is in police custody, the police are responsible for ANYTHING that happens to them.

If you take someone's freedom, then you take on the responsibility for their care; any harm that befalls them while in your custody is your problem, and you have to do whatever is necessary to protect them from such harm.

This is not a difficult moral conundrum here. This is really simple and basic shit.

And your attempt to change the subject is noted and derided for the pathetic diversion from your immoral stance on this question that it so obviously is. I don't give a fuck what anyone paints on their walls; it has ZERO bearing on the duty of care police have towards persons in their custody.

You are still responsible for your own actions even if you are under arrest. If I am handcuffed and pulled a cops gun and shot someone I would be guilty of the manslaughter/murder and not the caught you had the gun stolen.

If you are under arrest and handcuffed, and the cops let you get a hold of their guns, then they are most assuredly responsible for that failure of security on their part.

That a prisoner remains responsible for his actions does NOT negate the fact that the police are responsible for that prisoner's safety and well-being. They have a duty to restrain him from taking actions that might harm himself or others. If he succeeds in harming himself or oithers, then they have failed in that duty, and are responsible.

Really, this is not a difficult concept.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are still responsible for your own actions even if you are under arrest. If I am handcuffed and pulled a cops gun and shot someone I would be guilty of the manslaughter/murder and not the caught you had the gun stolen.

If you are under arrest and handcuffed, and the cops let you get a hold of their guns, then they are most assuredly responsible for that failure of security on their part.

That a prisoner remains responsible for his actions does NOT negate the fact that the police are responsible for that prisoner's safety and well-being. They have a duty to restrain him from taking actions that might harm himself or others. If he succeeds in harming himself or oithers, then they have failed in that duty, and are responsible.

Really, this is not a difficult concept.

Yes and no. If I pull the gun from an officer and shoot someone I am going to be tried for that crime, not the copy. But the police force itself might be sued for negligence by the the person shot too, but it's a different justice system. Freddie's family did get the civil justice for the negligence when the city settled out of court.

b

 

[beero1000]

YES!!!

When a person is in police custody, the police are responsible for ANYTHING that happens to them.

If you take someone's freedom, then you take on the responsibility for their care; any harm that befalls them while in your custody is your problem, and you have to do whatever is necessary to protect them from such harm.

This is not a difficult moral conundrum here. This is really simple and basic shit.

And your attempt to change the subject is noted and derided for the pathetic diversion from your immoral stance on this question that it so obviously is. I don't give a fuck what anyone paints on their walls; it has ZERO bearing on the duty of care police have towards persons in their custody.

You are still responsible for your own actions even if you are under arrest. If I am handcuffed and pulled a cops gun and shot someone I would be guilty of the manslaughter/murder and not the caught you had the gun stolen.

Just because you are guilty of a crime doesn't mean that the cops aren't. The cops would certainly be guilty in that scenario. It sounds like negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter to me.

Of course, they'd never be charged for it, but that doesn't mean they aren't liable.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are still responsible for your own actions even if you are under arrest. If I am handcuffed and pulled a cops gun and shot someone I would be guilty of the manslaughter/murder and not the caught you had the gun stolen.

Just because you are guilty of a crime doesn't mean that the cops aren't. The cops would certainly be guilty in that scenario. It sounds like negligent homicide to me.

Do you have an example of a cop that was charged and convincted of negligent homocide for having his/her gun stole by a criminal?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

It looks like he was trying to fake injuries and was a bit too successful.

"Looks like" probably should read "You have assumed".

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police.

No he's not. He's simply declaring what should be blindingly obvious. If you have the power to incarcerate someone you have the responsibility to keep them safe from harm while they are in your charge.

You have an obligation to protect them from outside harm. I don't think you have an obligation to protect them from self harm, though.

 

[ksen]

Just because you are guilty of a crime doesn't mean that the cops aren't. The cops would certainly be guilty in that scenario. It sounds like negligent homicide to me.

Do you have an example of a cop that was charged and convincted of negligent homocide for having his/her gun stole by a criminal?

It's hard enough finding examples of cops being charged and convicted for just about anything.

- - - Updated - - -

You have an obligation to protect them from outside harm. I don't think you have an obligation to protect them from self harm, though.

. . .

. . .

Wow, ok, well, then you'd be wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

"Looks like" probably should read "You have assumed".

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van.

One major reason for that is that Mr. Gray was not properly secured according to police protocols.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van.

One major reason for that is that Mr. Gray was not properly secured according to police protocols.

And the other prisoner claims to never have reported it. The police union reported it, but there is no record of anyone talking to the other prisoner about this when the police union made the claim.

- - - Updated - - -

You have an obligation to protect them from outside harm. I don't think you have an obligation to protect them from self harm, though.

Well I guess all those suicide prevention isolation cells and procedures are just for show.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Looks like" probably should read "You have assumed".

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van.

Reported. I saw it reported that the Officer in the Michael Brown case had suffered a broken orbital bone.

 

[Trausti]

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van.

Reported. I saw it reported that the Officer in the Michael Brown case had suffered a broken orbital bone.

It is probably noted elsewhere in this long thread, but it was more than just reported - it is evidence presented in the trials.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Williams found today that prosecutors committed a Brady violation — after Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence that would aid the defense — because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer/story?id=39725459

 

[RavenSky]

You're forgetting the other prisoner that reported Gray was banging around in the van...
You're still assuming he died because of some wrongdoing on the part of the police... You have an obligation to protect them from outside harm. I don't think you have an obligation to protect them from self harm, though.

And you are forgetting that Donta Allen says he did NOT claim "was banging around in the van" to knock himself out or commit "self harm" or whatever fantasy you are pushing here.

Donta Allen, the other prisoner inside the police transport van with Freddie Gray, clarified his story Thursday to WJZ, a Baltimore TV news station.

Allen says he wants to set the record straight after The Washington Post reported Wednesday that an internal police report quoted Allen as saying it seemed Freddie Gray was intentionally trying to hurt himself.

“All I did was go straight to the station, but I heard a little banging like he was banging his head,” Allen told WJZ. “And they are trying to make it seem like I told them that … like Freddie Gray did that to himself. Why the (expletive) would he do that to himself?”

http://wric.com/2015/05/01/other-prisoner-recants-freddie-gray-story/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reported. I saw it reported that the Officer in the Michael Brown case had suffered a broken orbital bone.

It is probably noted elsewhere in this long thread, but it was more than just reported - it is evidence presented in the trials.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Williams found today that prosecutors committed a Brady violation — after Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence that would aid the defense — because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-find...idence-freddie-gray-officer/story?id=39725459

That'd be different then. Thanks.

 

[RavenSky]

Reported. I saw it reported that the Officer in the Michael Brown case had suffered a broken orbital bone.

It is probably noted elsewhere in this long thread, but it was more than just reported - it is evidence presented in the trials.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Williams found today that prosecutors committed a Brady violation — after Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence that would aid the defense — because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer/story?id=39725459

Schatzow argued that Allen provided nothing at their meeting in May 2015 that required disclosure to the defense, and described Allen's comments there as entirely unreliable and contradictory — so much so, in fact, that they don't intend to call him as a witness.

Schatzow also said Thursday that the state believes Allen was coached on what to say in his initial statement to police by another police officer, Officer Zachary Novak, who the state granted immunity in order to testify before the grand jury — where he denied the coaching accusation.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-donta-allen-role-20160609-story.html

However we want to look at it, Donata Allen's conflicting statements cannot be used as evidence of anything, so Loren should stop trying to excuse Freddie Gray's death as self-inflicted on their basis.

 

[Trausti]

It is probably noted elsewhere in this long thread, but it was more than just reported - it is evidence presented in the trials.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Williams found today that prosecutors committed a Brady violation — after Brady v. Maryland, a 1963 Supreme Court decision requiring prosecutors to disclose evidence that would aid the defense — because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer/story?id=39725459

Schatzow argued that Allen provided nothing at their meeting in May 2015 that required disclosure to the defense, and described Allen's comments there as entirely unreliable and contradictory — so much so, in fact, that they don't intend to call him as a witness.

Schatzow also said Thursday that the state believes Allen was coached on what to say in his initial statement to police by another police officer, Officer Zachary Novak, who the state granted immunity in order to testify before the grand jury — where he denied the coaching accusation.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-donta-allen-role-20160609-story.html

However we want to look at it, Donata Allen's conflicting statements cannot be used as evidence of anything, so Loren should stop trying to excuse Freddie Gray's death as self-inflicted on their basis.

You're aware that Schatzow is part of the prosecution? The prosecution does not get to decide what evidence the defense may offer, unless the judge excludes it. Schatzow was obviously making excuses to the judge for why he did not hand over the evidence sooner, contrary to his obligations. The whole reason the judge sanctioned the prosecution in this instance is because the evidence is exculpatory and the defense had the right to introduce it. And, of course, this particular bit of evidence came from the prosecution's later interview with Allen. He had already told the police this much earlier. This subsequent interview was not helpful to the prosecution, so they tried to discredit it. Loren was right.

 

[laughing dog]

You're aware that Schatzow is part of the prosecution? The prosecution does not get to decide what evidence the defense may offer, unless the judge excludes it. Schatzow was obviously making excuses to the judge for why he did not hand over the evidence sooner, contrary to his obligations. The whole reason the judge sanctioned the prosecution in this instance is because the evidence is exculpatory and the defense had the right to introduce it. And, of course, this particular bit of evidence came from the prosecution's later interview with Allen. He had already told the police this much earlier. This subsequent interview was not helpful to the prosecution, so they tried to discredit it. Loren was right.

Except for the part where Allen explicitly denies what Loren is claiming, you are correct.

 

[RavenSky]

You're aware that Schatzow is part of the prosecution?

yes

The prosecution does not get to decide what evidence the defense may offer, unless the judge excludes it.

So? I wasn't defending his actions

The point remains that Allen has made conflicting statements about what he says he heard (not saw), so Loren was wrong. Loren can't honestly use one statement from Allen as the sole basis for his claim that Freddie Gray killed himself when Allen's other statements contradict it.

 

[Trausti]

You're aware that Schatzow is part of the prosecution? The prosecution does not get to decide what evidence the defense may offer, unless the judge excludes it. Schatzow was obviously making excuses to the judge for why he did not hand over the evidence sooner, contrary to his obligations. The whole reason the judge sanctioned the prosecution in this instance is because the evidence is exculpatory and the defense had the right to introduce it. And, of course, this particular bit of evidence came from the prosecution's later interview with Allen. He had already told the police this much earlier. This subsequent interview was not helpful to the prosecution, so they tried to discredit it. Loren was right.

Except for the part where Allen explicitly denies what Loren is claiming, you are correct.

He made statements to the police and the prosecution to this effect. That's that. He may have changed his story after this became a media shit storm and he had to worry about his neighbors. But as a general rule (at least, as an attorney who practices litigation), statements made before there is a motive to fabricate are more reliable than statements made later to the media. Hence, why the prosecution didn't event attempt to offer his media statements at trial.

 

[laughing dog]

Except for the part where Allen explicitly denies what Loren is claiming, you are correct.

He made statements to the police and the prosecution to this effect. That's that. He may have changed his story after this became a media shit storm and he had to worry about his neighbors. But as a general rule (at least, as an attorney who practices litigation), statements made before there is a motive to fabricate are more reliable than statements made later to the media. Hence, why the prosecution didn't event attempt to offer his media statements at trial.

He had motives to fabricate his initial statement as well. In fact, there is suggestive evidence he was coached by the police.

He recanted his statement. That is a fact - there is no "may" about it. Hence, using a recanted statement as a fact is neither convincing nor intellectually honest.

 

[Trausti]

He made statements to the police and the prosecution to this effect. That's that. He may have changed his story after this became a media shit storm and he had to worry about his neighbors. But as a general rule (at least, as an attorney who practices litigation), statements made before there is a motive to fabricate are more reliable than statements made later to the media. Hence, why the prosecution didn't event attempt to offer his media statements at trial.

He had motives to fabricate his initial statement as well. In fact, there is suggestive evidence he was coached by the police.

He recanted his statement. That is a fact - there is no "may" about it. Hence, using a recanted statement as a fact is neither convincing nor intellectually honest.

Come on. For anyone interested, the interview (which apparently was also recorded on mp3) was attached to Goodson's motion to dismiss: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2856634/Goodson-Motion-Part-1.pdf

Sometimes, ya just gotta concede that Loren is right once and awhile.

 

[laughing dog]

He had motives to fabricate his initial statement as well. In fact, there is suggestive evidence he was coached by the police.

He recanted his statement. That is a fact - there is no "may" about it. Hence, using a recanted statement as a fact is neither convincing nor intellectually honest.

Come on. For anyone interested, the interview (which apparently was also recorded on mp3) was attached to Goodson's motion to dismiss: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2856634/Goodson-Motion-Part-1.pdf

You think posting the contents of the first statement negates the FACT he later recanted. Really?

Sometimes, ya just gotta concede that Loren is right once and awhile.

Not this time.