Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[RavenSky]

If a murderer is not charged with murder, he is being UNDERCHARGED.

Murder requires intent. At most this is manslaughter.

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

 

[RavenSky]

In an ordinary murder case, prosecutors have to prove not only that a person was killed, but that the person charged with the crime intended for someone to die. In a depraved-heart murder case, prosecutors must prove instead that the suspect knowingly did something that was likely to kill, and that he showed "extreme indifference" to the possible harm....

I do not think the prosecution has any chance of proving this. Shooting a firearm into a crowd, or even shooting a specific person (like the Maryland case posted upthread) would fulfill it but how does giving somebody a "rough ride" translate into "likely to kill"?

Given how many times prisoners have come out of the back of the Baltimore police vans paralyzed, dead or seriously injured, even the rookie cops knew or should have known that a "rough ride" (if that is what happened) is likely to kill.

 

[Trausti]

Standard procedure motion to dismiss. Will we have a kitchen sink defense?

Moving for the prosecutor to be recused for conflicts of interest and incompetence is not a standard motion to dismiss.

 

[Nexus]

It looks like the feds need to reinvestigate that plumber that was murdered after his alleged rough ride. If only there had been riots after his death and the prosecutors couldn't ignore it we might have had some of our resident police apologists explain here how he was probably a thug that should have expected it to happen for peeing in public.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Standard procedure motion to dismiss. Will we have a kitchen sink defense?

Moving for the prosecutor to be recused for conflicts of interest and incompetence is not a standard motion to dismiss.

Really, if she is incompetent why would they want her dismissed? Wouldn't you want an incompetent lawyer on the other side?

 

[Rhea]

Afaik he was on probation so yes, it would have been necessary.

And with race not aside?

According to the lefties blacks need to be given more leeway. Is that what you mean?

No. According to leftists, people who are black should be given THE SAME LEEWAY as people who are white.

People who are black don't yet have that, so the result is that EITHER more leeway is appropriate for people who are black OR less leeway for people who are white, but whatever it takes to equalize it. The Moar Laww! folks would want less leeway for whites. The You're Fascists! folks would like more leeway for blacks.

But the main goal of all the leftists is actually Leeway Equality™ so, yuh, you have that wrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Murder requires intent. At most this is manslaughter.

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

The last place to look for facts is the media. The courts are a better place to determine justice, or at least the odds against injustice are higher.
The courts can decide to the best of its ability whether the accused was guilty of the killing and the nature of it.

It would have been better to adopt the English definition which gives a distinction between murder (malice aforethought) or through another means, such as gross negligence, recklessness and so forth which would be called manslaughter.

There are some forms of manslaughter so severe that they would carry the same sentence as murder.

The tone of this one sounds more like the interview with the leader of a lynch mob. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore.

There again the bottom-feeders of the press may have also whipped up things a little.

Allowing a prosecutor to air their case in public may have at one time been excellent entertainment for inbred hillbilly lynch mobs, but such exhibitions before before the trial defeats the purpose of common law. That is why in the UK this is a very much muted and even boring affair. The principle of common law justice is that the courts may adjudicate without outside influence.

Whether or not she is right, she seems more to be a career builder than a justice builder.

 

[Toni]

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

The last place to look for facts is the media. The courts are a better place to determine justice, or at least the odds against injustice are higher.
The courts can decide to the best of its ability whether the accused was guilty of the killing and the nature of it.

It would have been better to adopt the English definition which gives a distinction between murder (malice aforethought) or through another means, such as gross negligence, recklessness and so forth which would be called manslaughter.

There are some forms of manslaughter so severe that they would carry the same sentence as murder.

The tone of this one sounds more like the interview with the leader of a lynch mob. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore.

There again the bottom-feeders of the press may have also whipped up things a little.

Allowing a prosecutor to air their case in public may have at one time been excellent entertainment for inbred hillbilly lynch mobs, but such exhibitions before before the trial defeats the purpose of common law. That is why in the UK this is a very much muted and even boring affair. The principle of common law justice is that the courts may adjudicate without outside influence.

Whether or not she is right, she seems more to be a career builder than a justice builder.

For fuck's sake: she linked you to the legal definition of depraved heart murder, a class of murder that is defined in Maryland. She's talking about actual law. You are talking about re-working a legal system to suit your confused notions of reality.

If you cannot ken that, then....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Afaik he was on probation so yes, it would have been necessary.

According to the lefties blacks need to be given more leeway. Is that what you mean?

No. According to leftists, people who are black should be given THE SAME LEEWAY as people who are white.

People who are black don't yet have that, so the result is that EITHER more leeway is appropriate for people who are black OR less leeway for people who are white, but whatever it takes to equalize it. The Moar Laww! folks would want less leeway for whites. The You're Fascists! folks would like more leeway for blacks.

But the main goal of all the leftists is actually Leeway Equality™ so, yuh, you have that wrong.

I find an analogy can be very helpful. Male detained by cops for having a potentially illegal knife. Goes in to custody. Dies a week after being detained by cops in actions seemingly involving the cops. We have a few other males. Arrested for being involved in actions that led to the death of a male. They didn't get roughed up by the officers. In fact, all officers charged have survived well past a week of being charged.

Lefties notice a discrepancy there.

 

[whichphilosophy]

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

The last place to look for facts is the media. The courts are a better place to determine justice, or at least the odds against injustice are higher.
The courts can decide to the best of its ability whether the accused was guilty of the killing and the nature of it.

It would have been better to adopt the English definition which gives a distinction between murder (malice aforethought) or through another means, such as gross negligence, recklessness and so forth which would be called manslaughter.

There are some forms of manslaughter so severe that they would carry the same sentence as murder.

The tone of this one sounds more like the interview with the leader of a lynch mob. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore.

There again the bottom-feeders of the press may have also whipped up things a little.

Allowing a prosecutor to air their case in public may have at one time been excellent entertainment for inbred hillbilly lynch mobs, but such exhibitions before before the trial defeats the purpose of common law. That is why in the UK this is a very much muted and even boring affair. The principle of common law justice is that the courts may adjudicate without outside influence.

Whether or not she is right, she seems more to be a career builder than a justice builder.

For fuck's sake: she linked you to the legal definition of depraved heart murder, a class of murder that is defined in Maryland. She's talking about actual law. You are talking about re-working a legal system to suit your confused notions of reality.

If you cannot ken that, then....

There is no dispute about the definitions given. This may well fit, but a murder is not a murder until proven in a court of law and not before.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

WP are you still in the Emirates? Or are you back in the US at Gold Base? Your law degree is from Hong Kong correct?

I ask only because people might want to know where your perspective is coming from.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no dispute about the definitions given. This may well fit, but a murder is not a murder until proven in a court of law and not before.

If the act fits the definition, then it is murder regardless of the outcome of the court case.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is no dispute about the definitions given. This may well fit, but a murder is not a murder until proven in a court of law and not before.

If the act fits the definition, then it is murder regardless of the outcome of the court case.

I was going to say that there are lots of unsolved murders that have never seen a day in court.

 

[Rhea]

If the act fits the definition, then it is murder regardless of the outcome of the court case.

I was going to say that there are lots of unsolved murders that have never seen a day in court.

Well, obviously no murder happened, then!

 

[whichphilosophy]

WP are you still in the Emirates? Or are you back in the US at Gold Base? Your law degree is from Hong Kong correct?

I ask only because people might want to know where your perspective is coming from.

Quick Reference
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

Now I said earlier I was not suggesting innocent but the above is also very similar to English Law.
My own points are separation of State from the process of justice which is why I don't think prosecutors as politicians is a good idea.

Now I'm in Italy. Actually I've never been to Gold Base. However if the thread gets boring let me know and I can throw something in to liven things up a bit... Or maybe you can

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to say that there are lots of unsolved murders that have never seen a day in court.

Well, obviously no murder happened, then!

Our forensic technology can tell if a murder happened even from Neanderthal times, but would need evidence to at least point to a likely person.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is no dispute about the definitions given. This may well fit, but a murder is not a murder until proven in a court of law and not before.

If the act fits the definition, then it is murder regardless of the outcome of the court case.

It's a murder if the evidence shows it to be. Who did it is another issue.

 

[RavenSky]

Quick Reference
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

Now I said earlier I was not suggesting innocent but the above is also very similar to English Law.
My own points are separation of State from the process of justice which is why I don't think prosecutors as politicians is a good idea.

Now I'm in Italy. Actually I've never been to Gold Base. However if the thread gets boring let me know and I can throw something in to liven things up a bit... Or maybe you can

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to say that there are lots of unsolved murders that have never seen a day in court.

Well, obviously no murder happened, then!

Our forensic technology can tell if a murder happened even from Neanderthal times, but would need evidence to at least point to a likely person.

What does this derail have to do with anything I've said in this thread? I refuted Loren's erroneous claim that the charges against the police officers requires evidence of "intent" - the second degree murder charge in this case does not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Murder requires intent. At most this is manslaughter.

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

Whether the prosecutor is right as to whether this term applies (or which other one fits) we still have to wait for the trial so as to allow court being allowed to weigh the evidence.

 

[RavenSky]

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

Whether the prosecutor is right as to whether this term applies (or which other one fits) we still have to wait for the trial so as to allow court being allowed to weigh the evidence.

Again, what the fuck does this have to do with whether the charge itself requires "intent", which was Loren's erroneous claim?

 

[whichphilosophy]

WRONG

In general:

 Second Degree Murder: Definition. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Note definition #2.

Specifically:

Depraved-heart murder is a killing that results from gross negligence. For example, if a man practicing shooting in his backyard, located in a suburban area, accidentally shoots and kills someone, he can be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory. A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person can also be charged with murder under the depraved-heart theory.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-heart-murder/

Whether you agree that Goodson is guilty of this charge is one thing. But to keep repeating that incorrect claim over and over and over, in spite of the news media being incessantly filled with the factual information about the charge just shows that you are not discussing this case in good faith. Here is some more reading for you:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-charge-of-depraved-heart-murder-in-baltimore-1431109426

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...619450-f021-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-depraved-heart-murder/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/01/40359...unusual-charges-against-officers-in-baltimore

I'm sure even Trausti will agree with me on this one point.

Whether the prosecutor is right as to whether this term applies (or which other one fits) we still have to wait for the trial so as to allow court being allowed to weigh the evidence.

Again, what the fuck does this have to do with whether the charge itself requires "intent", which was Loren's erroneous claim?

As I said the court should decide based on the evidence it receives which is what I implied.