Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, if one of them did it and the other five were aware of what he was doing (ie - driving him around so he was banged around in the back, et al), then there's probable cause against all of them.

Still, where is intent. She charged one with second degree murder which requires intent. If she has no evidence that there was intent to kill this is prosecutorial misconduct - bringing charges she knows are groundless.
She also alleged that the arrest itself was illegal even though running from police constitutes probable cause.

The charge is second degree depraved heart murder. You can look up Maryland case law to find out more.

Robinson v. State:
"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

More on the spine debate:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/doctor-freddie-gray-not-sever-spine-article-1.2205179

There must be a sudden, traumatic blow to the spine that fractures, dislocates, crushes or compresses one or more of the vertebrae, or when a gun shot or knife penetrates the spinal cord. After a spinal cord injury, bleeding, inflammation and swelling occurs, and fluid builds up in and around the spinal cord. ...

Now, let’s talk about the crushed larynx. Also known as a laryngotracheal injury, a crushed larynx is pretty rare in adults, except when there is blunt force trauma to the front of the neck, such as strangulation, or blows to the trachea from fists or feet.

 

[Derec]

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."

A very disturbing and chilling development when a crime that by law (see the excerpt I posted) should be restricted to intentional killings is interpreted by judges and juries to not require intent due to the highly vague and subjective concept of "depraved heart" (which has more than a little religious ring to it).
Has SCOTUS ruled on that creeping widening of the concept of second degree murder to include unintentional killings?
I would also like to know how many people were convicted of 2nd degree murder under this provision.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Has SCOTUS ruled on that creeping widening of the concept of second degree murder to include unintentional killings?

I don't think this would get reviewed by SCOTUS since states can define their own laws regarding defining murder. This ruling is nearly 30 years old and it doesn't look like Maryland wants to change the definition to exclude it.

Here is the case:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861045307Md738_1986.xml/ROBINSON v. STATE

 

[Derec]

Here is the case:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861045307Md738_1986.xml/ROBINSON v. STATE

I think shooting somebody is quite different than driving them. Shooting somebody has a high likelihood of death; driving somebody, even roughly, does not.
I think the 35 year old prosecutor might have bitten off more than she can chew.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here is the case:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861045307Md738_1986.xml/ROBINSON v. STATE

I think shooting somebody is quite different than driving them.
I think the 35 year old prosecutor might have bitten off more than she can chew.

We will see. I think there is enough of a case that the officer sought to do harm to the victim and killed him in the process, and it also allows for a plea deal.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."

A very disturbing and chilling development when a crime that by law (see the excerpt I posted) should be restricted to intentional killings is interpreted by judges and juries to not require intent due to the highly vague and subjective concept of "depraved heart" (which has more than a little religious ring to it).
Has SCOTUS ruled on that creeping widening of the concept of second degree murder to include unintentional killings?
I would also like to know how many people were convicted of 2nd degree murder under this provision.

Depraved heart and depraved indifference are basically the same thing, just different language.

DEPRAVEd:
morally corrupt; wicked.
"a depraved indifference to human life"
synonyms: corrupt, perverted, deviant, degenerate, debased, immoral, unprincipled; ...

Among the many peculiar aspects of a policeman's job is he will from time to time be in the presence of a person who once posed a threat, but is now helpless. Is it normal behavior for a person to beat another person who is bound in chains and unable to threaten or defend? Take away the badge of office and this becomes a reprehensible act in any circumstance.

The legal standard for the more common term, "depraved indifference" takes away the "intention defense."

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime.

Under the law of most states(not my state, though) it is possible for a person to do something so stupid, it no longer matters what they intended to do.

 

[Trausti]

Has SCOTUS ruled on that creeping widening of the concept of second degree murder to include unintentional killings?

I don't think this would get reviewed by SCOTUS since states can define their own laws regarding defining murder. This ruling is nearly 30 years old and it doesn't look like Maryland wants to change the definition to exclude it.

Here is the case:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861045307Md738_1986.xml/ROBINSON v. STATE

I'll chime in that the phrase I learned in considering 2nd degree murder is "any idiot would know," in that "any idiot would know that such conduct had a high risk of causing serious injury or death." Intent is still relevant, but it is the intent to do the act rather than the intent to kill a specific person. The intent to kill a specific person is murder in the first degree. Firing a gun at moving cars on the highway. You may not intend to kill a specific person, but any idiot would know that doing this would result in a high risk of serious injury or death. Where intent to kill or to do a reckless act is absent, or is otherwise excused, then you look to manslaughter or negligent homicide.

It's a stretch here, but it's to be expected in this charged political atmosphere.

 

[Rhea]

"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."

A very disturbing and chilling development when a crime that by law (see the excerpt I posted) should be restricted to intentional killings is interpreted by judges and juries to not require intent due to the highly vague and subjective concept of "depraved heart" (which has more than a little religious ring to it).
Has SCOTUS ruled on that creeping widening of the concept of second degree murder to include unintentional killings?
I would also like to know how many people were convicted of 2nd degree murder under this provision.

I find the stance of, "I didn't give a shit if he lived or died from my actions and I did them without noticing or caring" to be exactly analogous to "intent". Sounds like a very good definition,.

 

[Derec]

You may not intend to kill a specific person, but any idiot would know that doing this would result in a high risk of serious injury or death.

Yes, but do rough rides result in a similarly high risk, much less is it obvious that they result in similarly high risk?
As I said before, I wonder how often such prosecutions are successful.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You may not intend to kill a specific person, but any idiot would know that doing this would result in a high risk of serious injury or death.

Yes, but do rough rides result in a similarly high risk, much less is it obvious that they result in similarly high risk?
As I said before, I wonder how often such prosecutions are successful.

Probably a lot more than you think. If you drive recklessly with someone in the car and you are trying to hurt that person and it results in death of the person then it could be second degree murder. It will be an interesting case.

 

[Rhea]

You may not intend to kill a specific person, but any idiot would know that doing this would result in a high risk of serious injury or death.

Yes, but do rough rides result in a similarly high risk, much less is it obvious that they result in similarly high risk?
As I said before, I wonder how often such prosecutions are successful.

High enough that those same cops would give you or me a ticket and a fine for not wearing a seatbelt during a NON-rough ride.

So,

Yeah.

By their own standard,
Yeah. Any idiot.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The question is, does the prosecutor really have probable cause against all six (and incredibly 2nd degree murder - which requires intent to kill - against one) or are the six merely sacrificial lambs to appease the thugs and rioters?

Well, if one of them did it and the other five were aware of what he was doing (ie - driving him around so he was banged around in the back, et al), then there's probable cause against all of them.

If they used RICO, they could send the entire force up the river.

 

[marc]

Kind of brings this to mind

Show

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/hBqzCXlG7Sg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if one of them did it and the other five were aware of what he was doing (ie - driving him around so he was banged around in the back, et al), then there's probable cause against all of them.

If they used RICO, they could send the entire force up the river.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. They have police boats. If you send them up the river, they'll just ride them back and we'll be right back where we started.

 

[Derec]

If they used RICO, they could send the entire force up the river.

It doesn't work that way. When the cheating Atlanta Public School teachers were RICOed it only applied to those teachers accused (and later convicted) of cheating, not all APS teachers or employees.
Also, from that case I learned that it's racist to prosecute black educators and that DA Paul Howard is a "house negro" for prosecuting them ...

 

[Derec]

High enough that those same cops would give you or me a ticket and a fine for not wearing a seatbelt during a NON-rough ride.

Manslaughter would have been fine. 2nd degree murder is overcharging in my opinion.

Also, it seems that Mosby has a conflict of interest here because the family lawyer served on her election committee and gave her $5,000 toward her campaign. She is also married to a city councilman, drawing suspicions that the charges are influenced by politics, not law.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If they used RICO, they could send the entire force up the river.

It doesn't work that way. When the cheating Atlanta Public School teachers were RICOed it only applied to those teachers accused (and later convicted) of cheating, not all APS teachers or employees.
Also, from that case I learned that it's racist to prosecute black educators and that DA Paul Howard is a "house negro" for prosecuting them ...

Wouldn't that depend on what the leadership knew? If the senior officers were aware that the officers under them were taking prisoners on nickel rides and approved of the practice, either tacitly or overtly, then it seems to me that RICO statutes could apply.

- - - Updated - - -

High enough that those same cops would give you or me a ticket and a fine for not wearing a seatbelt during a NON-rough ride.

Manslaughter would have been fine. 2nd degree murder is overcharging in my opinion.

Also, it seems that Mosby has a conflict of interest here because the family lawyer served on her election committee and gave her $5,000 toward her campaign. She is also married to a city councilman, drawing suspicions that the charges are influenced by politics, not law.

I agree. It's important to deflect blame away from the killers as much as possible and we need to focus on how everyone is evil except for them.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

High enough that those same cops would give you or me a ticket and a fine for not wearing a seatbelt during a NON-rough ride.

Manslaughter would have been fine. 2nd degree murder is overcharging in my opinion.

Has the evidence been presented yet? Because this sounds like a premature statement. For all we know the officer said, "I'm going to kill you and then tried to snap his neck." Unlikely, but not all the evidence has been released to the public. There may be recordings of bragging, video of beatings, etc.

Also, it seems that Mosby has a conflict of interest here because the family lawyer served on her election committee and gave her $5,000 toward her campaign. She is also married to a city councilman, drawing suspicions that the charges are influenced by politics, not law.

She is an attorney. The defense will have several as well. They might even be paid by the union.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

High enough that those same cops would give you or me a ticket and a fine for not wearing a seatbelt during a NON-rough ride.

Manslaughter would have been fine. 2nd degree murder is overcharging in my opinion.

Based on trying to save face?

Also, it seems that Mosby has a conflict of interest here because the family lawyer served on her election committee and gave her $5,000 toward her campaign. She is also married to a city councilman, drawing suspicions that the charges are influenced by politics, not law.

Yeah, that is pretty damning stuff. It is amazing how all this is coming out now, almost as if people were waiting to start the personal attacks knowing charges were coming. A guy is dead. Not a very nice guy, but the law doesn't address bad guys verses good guys when it comes to treatment by the police.

And now you folk are going on about railroading, donations, and whether she likes it in missionary... wait... maybe it hasn't gotten that far yet. But knowing Derec...