Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Tom Sawyer]

How is this not a difficult case to prove? The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the defendants. It's for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver acted with a depraved heart. Good luck with that.

I don't think they need luck so much as they need one of the five other police officers to flip in exchange for a deal. The involuntary manslughter convictions are a breeze to win and one or two of them testifying in exchange for a plea would make for a solid case. If everyone keeps their mouth shut and holds to the blue wall, manslughter is probably the best they'll be able to get.

 

[Rhea]

This is presuming he can't hold onto anything. If he keeps his position during a stop, his head will whiplash after into the back door.

What I find funny is that we know what happened and we still have people arguing it didn't happen.

If you are bracing yourself against a deceleration you may sway back a little when the deceleration stops. I would be surprising if you braced yourself with sufficient force to throw yourself backward in the opposite direction with enough energy to fracture bones.

1. If you have a car that is breaking rapidly, there will come a point at which the tires grip completely, but the suspension continues to travel, loading up the springs as the weight lurches forward. The suspension then releases that energy, throwing the occupants backwards. Try it. Try slamming on your brakes hard and coming to a full stop suddenly. If your car does NOT rock backwards with a fair amount of speed, then you need to change your springs.

But the only way to make someone hit the back wall is acceleration.

2. which is very easily accomplished with very little torque if the person is already unbalanced from the braking and is shackled, unable to brace when thrown back.

3. Actually, it is not the only way. Another way is for them to take him out of the car, then shove him back in, but not all the way, and slam the door on his head.

4. And no, it's really not. You put the car into reverse, accelerate moderately, then slam on the brakes while traveling backwards. This applies all of the force and energy of braking to the body moving toward the rear of the van.



The defense has its work cut out for it in trying to come up with a story that is _more_ plausible than any of the above; all of which demonstrate deliberate action known to cause injury.

 

[Trausti]

How is this not a difficult case to prove? The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the defendants. It's for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver acted with a depraved heart. Good luck with that.

I don't think they need luck so much as they need one of the five other police officers to flip in exchange for a deal. The involuntary manslughter convictions are a breeze to win and one or two of them testifying in exchange for a plea would make for a solid case. If everyone keeps their mouth shut and holds to the blue wall, manslughter is probably the best they'll be able to get.

I can't see how anyone would characterize the involuntary manslaughter charges to be a breeze. The essence of the charges - against only three of the six - is that they did not timely render aid. That may give a case for civil liability, but criminal culpability? Nah.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think they need luck so much as they need one of the five other police officers to flip in exchange for a deal. The involuntary manslughter convictions are a breeze to win and one or two of them testifying in exchange for a plea would make for a solid case. If everyone keeps their mouth shut and holds to the blue wall, manslughter is probably the best they'll be able to get.

I can't see how anyone would characterize the involuntary manslaughter charges to be a breeze. The essence of the charges - against only three of the six - is that they did not timely render aid. That may give a case for civil liability, but criminal culpability? Nah.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that point.

 

[Trausti]

Sgt. White who is responsible for investigating two citizen complaints pertaining to Mr. Gray’s illegal arrest spoke to the back of Mr. Gray’s head. When he did not respond, she did nothing further despite the fact that she was advised that he needed a medic. She made no effort to look or assess or determine his condition.

Involuntary manslaughter? What. The. Fuck.

Methinks that the prosecutor will see a few ethics charges in future over this nonsense.

 

[dismal]

The defense has its work cut out for it in trying to come up with a story that is _more_ plausible than any of the above; all of which demonstrate deliberate action known to cause injury.

No, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. You having separate theories about how it happened actually makes it harder. If it's reasonable to conclude someone else came along and slammed his head in the door then the van driver is not guilty.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The defense has its work cut out for it in trying to come up with a story that is _more_ plausible than any of the above; all of which demonstrate deliberate action known to cause injury.

No, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. You having separate theories about how it happened actually makes it harder. If it's reasonable to conclude someone else came along and slammed his head in the door then the van driver is not guilty.

That would be an interesting defense argument for Officer X if that officer said it was officer Y who slammed the door shut on his head.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Correct. I posted a definition and links to the legal precedence in this thread. Perhaps you might review it.

Well, sure, I should always come here for expert legal analysis. Why would I read all those so called experts out there who keep saying this will be a very difficult case to prove?

It's not like you guys have ever been wrong before on these sorts of cases.

Your issue is with the way the law has been interpreted by the courts - the prosecuting attorney has made her decision to charge based upon the current definition. This does not mean she will get a conviction. If you feel the courts have overstepped their bounds in defining the term this way I would recommend pursuing it with the Maryland courts or legislators.

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Gray died in police custody. If the autopsy shows that the death was due to an event that occurred while he was in custody, no amount of spin or conjecture can alter the conclusion that the police are responsible for Mr. Gray's death.

 

[Rhea]

The defense has its work cut out for it in trying to come up with a story that is _more_ plausible than any of the above; all of which demonstrate deliberate action known to cause injury.

No, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. You having separate theories about how it happened actually makes it harder. If it's reasonable to conclude someone else came along and slammed his head in the door then the van driver is not guilty.

In order to prove a reasonable doubt, don't they need to come up with a scenario that is more reasonably likely than these? And if one is another person, it does not mean the drive was still the cause of death. Again, convince me that it was NOT on of these. Evoke some reasonable doubt...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Mr. Gray died in police custody. If the autopsy shows that the death was due to an event that occurred while he was in custody, no amount of spin or conjecture can alter the conclusion that the police are responsible for Mr. Gray's death.

What the defense needs to do is to keep all the cops quiet. If nobody reveals what actually happened, reasonable doubt will enter into the picture. If officer X only viewed the prisoner while officer Y was attending, is officer X guilty?

 

[dismal]

In order to prove a reasonable doubt, don't they need to come up with a scenario that is more reasonably likely than these?

No.

- - - Updated - - -

Mr. Gray died in police custody. If the autopsy shows that the death was due to an event that occurred while he was in custody, no amount of spin or conjecture can alter the conclusion that the police are responsible for Mr. Gray's death.

What the defense needs to do is to keep all the cops quiet. If nobody reveals what actually happened, reasonable doubt will enter into the picture. If officer X only viewed the prisoner while officer Y was attending, is officer X guilty?

If the prosecution doesn't know what actually happened why is it actually charging people?

Fishing expedition?

 

[Rhea]

In order to prove a reasonable doubt, don't they need to come up with a scenario that is more reasonably likely than these?

No.

Then by what magic do they instill doubt about these scenarios likely to be offered by the prosecution?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Mr. Gray died in police custody. If the autopsy shows that the death was due to an event that occurred while he was in custody, no amount of spin or conjecture can alter the conclusion that the police are responsible for Mr. Gray's death.

Not quite. If Gray was sitting down in the van, even if they didn't lock him down and he decided to get up while the van is in motion or he tried to escape then it's his responsibility. Proving that for the defense will be tough though

 

[Trausti]

The defense has its work cut out for it in trying to come up with a story that is _more_ plausible than any of the above; all of which demonstrate deliberate action known to cause injury.

No, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. You having separate theories about how it happened actually makes it harder. If it's reasonable to conclude someone else came along and slammed his head in the door then the van driver is not guilty.

There's a causal problem, too. Both murder and manslaughter require an act that results in a killing. That the spine broke while the driver was moving the van is speculation. But assuming that's correct, then the involuntary manslaughter charges may be unsustainable. The prosecutor would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that failing to render aid earlier would have made any difference in the outcome.

 

[Trausti]

No.

Then by what magic do they instill doubt about these scenarios likely to be offered by the prosecution?

Showing that the prosecution lacks the necessary evidence to satisfy the elements of the charges. The prosecution has not shown you any evidence for this and does not have an explanation for that. Happens all the time.

 

[dismal]

No.

Then by what magic do they instill doubt about these scenarios likely to be offered by the prosecution?

They need only show the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The part where they expose the real killer makes great drama on TV but is not actually required for a successful defense.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Then by what magic do they instill doubt about these scenarios likely to be offered by the prosecution?

They need only show the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The part where they expose the real killer makes great drama on TV but is not actually required for a successful defense.

The prosecution pretty much only needs to prove that a rough ride contributed to his death for the Murder II. For the others, the denial of medical care when requested. Spines are incapable of breaking themselves and he had a perfectly healthy spine before meeting with the police.

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Gray died in police custody. If the autopsy shows that the death was due to an event that occurred while he was in custody, no amount of spin or conjecture can alter the conclusion that the police are responsible for Mr. Gray's death.

Not quite. If Gray was sitting down in the van, even if they didn't lock him down and he decided to get up while the van is in motion or he tried to escape then it's his responsibility.

Wrong. The police did not follow procedure because they did not secure him in the van.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And why don't these vans have cameras in the passenger compartments? This is very hard to believe in this day and age.