• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of braking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braking

I wouldn't think a big police van is not going to have all that much acceleration. If it was caused by the bolt I'd bet there was a good chance Gray was standing up and fell backward.
This is solved by the process known as "slamming on the brakes".

Laws of physics say braking will not cause someone to hit the back door. Unless you are going in reverse.

Or forward then reverse. Or swerving side to side and then braking hard. Nobody's claiming that a "rough ride" involves simply braking once.

Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.
I'd agree with you, but then I'd feel bad about it. That said, the leg irons, if heavy enough, could force his torso/body forward when braking hard, but his feet would stay about static. This will cause a whiplash and he could hit the back of his head pretty badly.
 
Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.

Would laws of physics somehow get someone without a seatbelt to somehow fall out of his seat when swerving side to side? When that person is out of his seat, would sudden accelerations and brakings get him to somehow move forwards and backwards within the van? Is the concept of a rough ride somehow complex and not straightforward and easy to understand?
 
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of braking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braking

I wouldn't think a big police van is not going to have all that much acceleration. If it was caused by the bolt I'd bet there was a good chance Gray was standing up and fell backward.
This is solved by the process known as "slamming on the brakes".

Laws of physics say braking will not cause someone to hit the back door. Unless you are going in reverse.

Or forward then reverse. Or swerving side to side and then braking hard. Nobody's claiming that a "rough ride" involves simply braking once.

Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.

What universe are your physics describing? You can fly all over the place as the car stops and the energy is transferred. He could have been against the backdoor and when the force of breaking let up his head could go back into the bolt.

Also if he didn't hit the back door, who slammed his head into the bolt?
He did it. Because Police!
 
Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside of the BPD wagon," Mosby said Friday, announcing charges against the six officers involved in his arrest.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what...d-to-freddie-grays-death-2015-5#ixzz3YvEy1md5
An injury that could only be caused by a guy who rammed the back of his head in to the back door at an effective 35 mph to 0 mph sudden stop deceleration. Prosecutor presumes the victim ran as fast as he could (approximately 35 mph), jumped and spun 180, and then slammed his head into the back door bolt.
 
And as far as the acceleration of the vehicle, it was a Chevrolet Express Police Transport Van with a V8. Pleanty of acceleration power there.

http://www.gmfleet.com/police/express-police-transport-van.html
His point does stand that 35 to 0 is faster to achieve that 0 to 35. The key is the time it takes to do it. Which is why I favor the magic negro 0 to 35 mph dash in the back of the van, jump, spin, slam head thing... because they can do that.

Must be all that extra fast-twitch muscle fiber
 
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.

Yeah. Typical politically-motivated overcharge. All too often it means the people walk on what they really did.

- - - Updated - - -

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of braking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braking

I wouldn't think a big police van is not going to have all that much acceleration. If it was caused by the bolt I'd bet there was a good chance Gray was standing up and fell backward.
This is solved by the process known as "slamming on the brakes".

Laws of physics say braking will not cause someone to hit the back door. Unless you are going in reverse.

The laws of outrage trump the laws of physics. Shut up! :D
 
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of braking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braking

I wouldn't think a big police van is not going to have all that much acceleration. If it was caused by the bolt I'd bet there was a good chance Gray was standing up and fell backward.
This is solved by the process known as "slamming on the brakes".

Laws of physics say braking will not cause someone to hit the back door. Unless you are going in reverse.

Or forward then reverse. Or swerving side to side and then braking hard. Nobody's claiming that a "rough ride" involves simply braking once.

Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.

What universe are your physics describing? You can fly all over the place as the car stops and the energy is transferred. He could have been against the backdoor and when the force of breaking let up his head could go back into the bolt.

Also if he didn't hit the back door, who slammed his head into the bolt?

If he bounced off the front hard enough to break his neck hitting the back of the van it doesn't really matter if his neck broke on the second hit because he wouldn't have survived the initial hit.

Unless they backed fast and then stomped on the brakes the driver couldn't have caused him to hit the back with serious force. We do have a report of him banging around in there, though--this could be an accidental self-inflicted wound.

- - - Updated - - -

Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.

Would laws of physics somehow get someone without a seatbelt to somehow fall out of his seat when swerving side to side? When that person is out of his seat, would sudden accelerations and brakings get him to somehow move forwards and backwards within the van? Is the concept of a rough ride somehow complex and not straightforward and easy to understand?

You can only be thrown in a direction as hard as the vehicle can accelerate in the opposite direction. Large vehicles have some pretty poor acceleration--throwing him hard against the back would be pretty darn hard.
 
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of braking.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/braking

I wouldn't think a big police van is not going to have all that much acceleration. If it was caused by the bolt I'd bet there was a good chance Gray was standing up and fell backward.
This is solved by the process known as "slamming on the brakes".

Laws of physics say braking will not cause someone to hit the back door. Unless you are going in reverse.

Or forward then reverse. Or swerving side to side and then braking hard. Nobody's claiming that a "rough ride" involves simply braking once.

Law of physics say forward then reverse will not cause someone to hit back door. Law of physics say side to side will not cause someone to hit back door.

Law of physics say forward acceleration will do it. Or deceleration while car moving backward.

What universe are your physics describing? You can fly all over the place as the car stops and the energy is transferred. He could have been against the backdoor and when the force of breaking let up his head could go back into the bolt.

Also if he didn't hit the back door, who slammed his head into the bolt?

If he bounced off the front hard enough to break his neck hitting the back of the van it doesn't really matter if his neck broke on the second hit because he wouldn't have survived the initial hit.

Unless they backed fast and then stomped on the brakes the driver couldn't have caused him to hit the back with serious force. We do have a report of him banging around in there, though--this could be an accidental self-inflicted wound.


So, your story is that it is more likely--i.e. easier for an individual to throw oneself about the back of a van hard enough to break one's neck--while shackled, no less, than it is to be thrown hard enough by a van accelerating and stopping while you are not confined by a seat belt?

Do tell. Oh, wait: I keep forgetting. Freddie Gray was a black man, and therefore had superhuman strength as well as a desire to do police wrong, even if it meant he might get hurt. We all understand that he wouldn't have been smart enough to have foreseen actually dying of the self inflicted broken neck, being a black man and all.



You can only be thrown in a direction as hard as the vehicle can accelerate in the opposite direction. Large vehicles have some pretty poor acceleration--throwing him hard against the back would be pretty darn hard.

MUCH harder than him throwing his big black man self about with enough force to break his own neck?


How much riding around in the back of trucks and vans without a seat belt have you done, anyway? Any of it with hand cuffs and leg restraints? I realize you can't do anything about the not being black part, so we'll make allowances.
 
I haven't seem any mention of the "rough ride" or "nickel ride".

When I was a teenager back in Flint, MI, I knew guys who said they were cuffed with their hands behind their backs and put in the back of the squad car. Then the cops would stop suddenly, "for a dog". No way could you escape bashing your face into the partition. So I would guess this is a venerable police tradition.

From the NY Times:

In Baltimore, they call it a “rough ride.” In Philadelphia, they had another name for it that hints at the age of the practice — a “nickel ride,” a reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents. Other cities called them joy rides.

The slang terms mask a dark tradition of police misconduct in which suspects, seated or lying face down and in handcuffs in the back of a police wagon, are jolted and battered by an intentionally rough and bumpy ride that can do as much damage as a police baton without an officer having to administer a blow.

The exact cause of the spinal injury that Freddie Gray, 25, sustained while in police custody in Baltimor before his death April 19 has not been made clear. The police have said that he was not strapped into a seatbelt, a violation of department policy. That has led some to wonder whether he was deliberately left unbuckled, reminiscent of a practice that while little known has left a brutal, costly legacy of severe injuries and multimillion-dollar settlements throughout the country.

I think this theory is sounding more likely, particularly given the very strange detour the police van took.
 
Also, that inhaler - I wonder if that was an early symptom of his injuries? From everything I'm reading, I'm not sure it presents convincing evidence that _all_ of the damage happened in a rough ride in the van.

The pictures of him being dragged to the van, and also asking for an inhaler - first injury?
Broken vocal box - second injury and inflicted by hand?
The bolt injury to the head - third injury and worst damage to previous injuries?

It does not appear to tie up in a neat package. Instead it looks messy, brutal and ongoing. And sick.

I've wondered if the voice box injury may have happened from having a knee pressed into his neck while he was face flat on the pavement, but it does seem he was able to speak after that.

I've also wondered if Freddie Gray passed out at some point from not being able to breath because they refused to give him an inhaler. A limp unconscious body is going to toss around the back of the van than even a handcuffed shackled but conscious person.
 
How much riding around in the back of trucks and vans without a seat belt have you done, anyway? Any of it with hand cuffs and leg restraints? I realize you can't do anything about the not being black part, so we'll make allowances.

Actually, it might surprise you--I've spent 5 months as a passenger in the back of a truck over generally exceedingly bad roads. (Extreme example: The truck was going as fast as it safely could over the terrain. I grabbed the side of the truck and climbed aboard--the driver knew I was going to, the road was limiting him to a speed that he didn't need to slow further.) The driver wasn't playing games with the gas & brake but the potholes were such that cars would have bottomed out and gotten stuck.
 
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.

Yes, actually, the very high risk of serious injury to the person in custody is very well known to cops. Baltimore, in particular, has paid out millions to various victims that have been let paralyzed or dead from "rough rides"

- - - 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.

and she's a woman
 
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.

I don't think it's the "rough ride" the prosecutor is saying amounts to 2nd degree. The prosecutor's statement does not allude to any evidence for that. The statement repeatedly references that Gray was not in a seat belt. But that's really doesn't get you 2nd degree either, as seat belts had been discretionary up until a several days before the incident. Can't say "any idiot would know" no seat belt would lead to injury if injury only happened rarely in the past. (Buses don't have seat belts.) Instead, my take from the prosecutor's statement is that she is directing the 2nd degree charge to the driver's failure to call for medical assistance sooner. Purportedly, the driver was aware that Gray was unstable, and asked for help, but chose instead to go on his route to the next arrest. It's a pretty weak basis for 2nd degree. More akin to negligence homicide. Which is why, I suppose, the driver is also charged with manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter.
If the map I've seen (posted the link earlier) is accurate, it doesn't appear that police went to the next arrest either (which was barely a block away from where Freddie Gray was arrested). Instead, they went on a very interesting detour with numerous turns to the other end of town, stopping three times along the way without calling for medical assistance, THEN backtracked to the original location to load up the second prisoner, then went to the police station.

The cops conveniently left the detour and third stop out of their initial reports.
 
How much riding around in the back of trucks and vans without a seat belt have you done, anyway? Any of it with hand cuffs and leg restraints? I realize you can't do anything about the not being black part, so we'll make allowances.

Actually, it might surprise you--I've spent 5 months as a passenger in the back of a truck over generally exceedingly bad roads. (Extreme example: The truck was going as fast as it safely could over the terrain. I grabbed the side of the truck and climbed aboard--the driver knew I was going to, the road was limiting him to a speed that he didn't need to slow further.) The driver wasn't playing games with the gas & brake but the potholes were such that cars would have bottomed out and gotten stuck.

I've been slammed around in vans and pickups (both had no seats and metal floors) without shackles on smooth interstate highways. I also was conscious and could breathe the entire time. Maybe our experiences are different that the man who was shackled and placed on his stomach and taken on a rough ride?
 
Back
Top Bottom