Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Axulus]

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.

We don't convict groups in criminal trials. "Someone was responsible here, therefore you are all guilty." The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt which specific actions (or lack of actions that demonstrate negligence) by which specific individuals caused the event(s) that lead to the death.

 

[dismal]

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.

Legal experts seem to disagree.

I'm not sure where this idea that police are required to be responsive to your requests while they are arresting you comes from. Not from watching reruns of COPS, I'm sure. And moreover it will be interesting to show how the officers who were there at the time of the arrest were responsible for not giving him medical care for a fractured spine that occurred later in the van. Or when he was hit by the door. Or whatever it was that happened. Whenever it happened.

 

[Trausti]

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.

Eh. It needs to prove a "rough ride" beyond a reasonable doubt; not could of, or possibly, or by a preponderance of the evidence. Then it needs to prove that the rough ride caused the injury. A jury is not permitted to guess at these things. And if you are aware of case were involuntary manslaughter charges held for failure to render aid, please advise. I might imagine that this could apply to a parent who mistreats a child. But there is no duty to render aid generally absent a special relationship. A cop owes a general duty to the public, not to any particular person. Being a cop does not create a special relationship with an arrestee. The cop would be held to the same standard, i.e., no special duty, as any member of the public.

 

[Axulus]

Being a cop does not create a special relationship with an arrestee. The cop would be held to the same standard, i.e., no special duty, as any member of the public.

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

 

[Trausti]

Being a cop does not create a special relationship with an arrestee. The cop would be held to the same standard, i.e., no special duty, as any member of the public.

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

If you're going to charge them with manslaughter, they are held to the same standard as anyone else. Despite what the public may believe, the law does not recognize a special relationship between a cop and an arrestee. No special duty to render care. Now, if you want to sue them for violation of civil rights, that's a different story.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And if you are aware of case were involuntary manslaughter charges held for failure to render aid, please advise.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...ed-to-dressler/actus-reus/people-v-beardsley/

Here is one of our statues here that address this:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.662

 

[Axulus]

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

If you're going to charge them with manslaughter, they are held to the same standard as anyone else. Despite what the public may believe, the law does not recognize a special relationship between a cop and an arrestee. No special duty to render care. Now, if you want to sue them for violation of civil rights, that's a different story.

So cops can arrest someone who is bleeding and let them bleed to death and there are no criminal penalties for that?

A cop can arrest someone who is having difficulty breathing and let them suffocate to death?

Do you have a source to what on the face of it seems to be absurd in the extreme?

 

[Axulus]

And if you are aware of case were involuntary manslaughter charges held for failure to render aid, please advise.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...ed-to-dressler/actus-reus/people-v-beardsley/

Here is one of our statues here that address this:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.662

From the link:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person owes no legal obligation to another unless such person is within his custody or care as a dependent person.

Exactly as I would've expected. Where are you getting your claims from, Trausti?

 

[dismal]

Being a cop does not create a special relationship with an arrestee. The cop would be held to the same standard, i.e., no special duty, as any member of the public.

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

This is true up to a point. It does not follow from this that they are required to be responsive to any complaint an arrestee makes. They do tend to make complaints. There is certainly some standard that goes beyond "what the arrestee says" that would make the cops negligent for not getting aid.

And if the response to this is 'ZMFOG he had a fractured spine of course they were negligent" the prosecution's own theory seems to be he did not have a fractured spine when at least some of these officers dealt with him and when he was asking for medical attention.

 

[Axulus]

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

This is true up to a point. It does not follow from this that they are required to be responsive to any complaint an arrestee makes. They do tend to make complaints. There is certainly some standard that goes beyond "what the arrestee says" that would make the cops negligent for not getting aid.

And if the response to this is 'ZMFOG he had a fractured spine of course they were negligent" the prosecution's own theory seems to be he did not have a fractured spine when at least some of these officers dealt with him and when he was asking for medical attention.

I didn't say anything about "any complaint" - I would think negligence only applies to specific situations, such as completely ignoring a situation where a person is dying in the back of your vehicle, is under severe pain, and who has made repeated attempts to obtain medical aid.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is true up to a point. It does not follow from this that they are required to be responsive to any complaint an arrestee makes. They do tend to make complaints. There is certainly some standard that goes beyond "what the arrestee says" that would make the cops negligent for not getting aid.

And if the response to this is 'ZMFOG he had a fractured spine of course they were negligent" the prosecution's own theory seems to be he did not have a fractured spine when at least some of these officers dealt with him and when he was asking for medical attention.

I didn't say anything about "any complaint" - I would think negligence only applies to specific situations, such as completely ignoring a situation where a person is dying in the back of your vehicle, is under severe pain, and who has made repeated attempts to obtain medical aid.

Yes, but in this case it's where and when too. If the spinal injury occurred right before the last stop, they open the door and see him like that and then call for an ambulance that would be okay. But we have several things here. They would have to prove that it was a serious enough condition that they had to call medical division and didn't. We'll see how any trial goes.

 

[Trausti]

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...ed-to-dressler/actus-reus/people-v-beardsley/

Here is one of our statues here that address this:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.662

From the link:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person owes no legal obligation to another unless such person is within his custody or care as a dependent person.

Exactly as I would've expected. Where are you getting your claims from, Trausti?

From the link:

However, the Defendant owed no such duty to the alleged victim here. Ms. Burns was over 30 years of age, and her conduct indicates that she had plenty of experience with carousing with men and consuming alcohol and drugs. Hence, while the defendant may have had a moral duty to protect Ms. Burns, the law imposes no such duty on him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On Prager today, about a story of a man who was injured severely in Police Custody is whether we can call the protesters (lumped in with the rioters) "thugs".

 

[arkirk]

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.

We don't convict groups in criminal trials. "Someone was responsible here, therefore you are all guilty." The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt which specific actions (or lack of actions that demonstrate negligence) by which specific individuals caused the event(s) that lead to the death.

Ever heard of the Chicago 7? You are about half right here. Conspiracy trials usually do not result in convictions because of the difficulty in prosecuting conspiracy. In the few cases where such trials resulted in convictions, the penalties still are portioned out based on the alleged degree of guilt of each individual. The current indictments in the Freddy Gray case appear aimed at the primary actors in the crime. It will be interesting to see how many of those indicted return to the streets of Baltimore again as cops.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

After someone is arrested, the cops have a special duty of care to the arrestee as the arrestee is completely helpless and at the mercy of the cops, and the cops are the ones responsible for putting the arrestee in that situation by arresting him.

This is true up to a point. It does not follow from this that they are required to be responsive to any complaint an arrestee makes.

Well hopefully each of the officers wasn't a rookie and completely unable to tell a lie from the truth. But then again, it seems that cops aren't expected to really have any experience or training. They are just given a gun and a blindfold and we all hope for the best.

They do tend to make complaints. There is certainly some standard that goes beyond "what the arrestee says" that would make the cops negligent for not getting aid.

I'm curious. What other life ending injuries exist where an officer shouldn't be able to tell legit complaints from an illegitimate one? Please keep in context that the guy in the van wasn't restrained in any way.

 

[Trausti]

Exactly as I would've expected. Where are you getting your claims from, Trausti?

The California case explains it well enough:

Nevertheless, although "no special relationship may exist between members of the California Highway Patrol and the motoring public generally, or between the Patrol and stranded motorists generally", when the state, through its agents, voluntarily assumes a protective duty toward a certain member of the public and undertakes action on behalf of that member, thereby inducing reliance, it is held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15900081804660686921&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

It's funny. As a lawyer there are many things you just know from practice, then someone challenges you to support it. Ah.

 

[dismal]

I'm curious. What other life ending injuries exist where an officer shouldn't be able to tell legit complaints from an illegitimate one? Please keep in context that the guy in the van wasn't restrained in any way.

Which complaints were the ones that were made after the life ending injuries existed?

 

[Axulus]

The California case explains it well enough:

Nevertheless, although "no special relationship may exist between members of the California Highway Patrol and the motoring public generally, or between the Patrol and stranded motorists generally", when the state, through its agents, voluntarily assumes a protective duty toward a certain member of the public and undertakes action on behalf of that member, thereby inducing reliance, it is held to the same standard of care as a private person or organization.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15900081804660686921&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

It's funny. As a lawyer there are many things you just know from practice, then someone challenges you to support it. Ah.

This is not referring to cases where the person has been arrested and is in police custody. This is the key distinction you are failing to take into account.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm curious. What other life ending injuries exist where an officer shouldn't be able to tell legit complaints from an illegitimate one? Please keep in context that the guy in the van wasn't restrained in any way.

Which complaints were the ones that were made after the life ending injuries existed?

Is that supposed to help your argument?

 

[Axulus]

I'm curious. What other life ending injuries exist where an officer shouldn't be able to tell legit complaints from an illegitimate one? Please keep in context that the guy in the van wasn't restrained in any way.

Which complaints were the ones that were made after the life ending injuries existed?

Perhaps the actions that the officers deemed as Freddie being "uncooperative" were actually attempts to obtain medical aid.

What will be most interesting is if one of the officers (other than the driver) accepts a plea deal and becomes an eyewitness for the prosecution. That will be very telling and I think will be a key component of the prosecution's case. Failure to obtain that will make things far more difficult.