Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[maxparrish]

"There was no "ambush zone", and the guy yakking on his cell phone didn't ambush anybody, but you already knew that. Too bad the author didn't get the memo about deep-sixing the ambush story."

"In Porter’s case it looks increasingly like he did nothing, literally nothing, wrong in his interactions with Gray."
"There was a problem with that sentence but I fixed it."

"Okay, the author at least understands the nature of the charges."

Pet Peeve: You don't need to clutter replys with breaks of irrelevant and pointless chatter over the text. If you have nothing of substance to say on this case, don't.

For illustrative purposes, let’s consider the most serious of the charges for which Porter is being tried, involuntary manslaughter (essentially the same analysis applies to the lesser charges of second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment, as well, but I only have so much time for blogging).

First let’s note that even the prosecution concedes that Porter committed no affirmative act that caused Gray harm. They are therefore attempting to convict him of involuntary manslaughter based on a failure to act, an “act of omission.”

It is, indeed, possible for a failure to act to provide the basis for involuntary manslaughter, but only where: (1)(a) there existed and (b) the defendant was aware (or should have been aware) that there existed a legal duty to act, (2) the defendant was aware the circumstances raised the legal duty, and (3) the defendant knew or should have known that the failure to meet their legal duty presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim’s life.

Note that all of these elements are necessary to reach a verdict of guilty on a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

In Porter’s case the prosecution is arguing that he violated two legal duties: (1) Porter failed to buckle Gray into the van, and (2) Porter ‘s alleged delay in providing medical care to Gray.

(1)(a) Did there exist a legal duty to buckle Gray into the van?

The prosecution is arguing that the Baltimore Police Department’s new rule that arrestees must be buckled into police vans, enacted days before Gray’s arrest, created imposed legal duty upon Porter, and that the failure to meet that legal duty constitutes a crime.

(But) One of today’s expert witnesses for the defense was Police Chief Timothy Longo, of Charlottesville VA, who among other things was a member of the Baltimore Police Department for 18 years, including command positions, and also an independent monitor for the Department of Justice consent judgment for the Cincinnati police department.

Chief Longo testified that the new seatbelt rule, indeed any simple departmental policy, could not create such a legal duty, if only for the simple practical reason that police officers are required to use their considerable discretion in the application of any departmental rule to the real-world circumstances they encounter. Longo noted that officers must use their discretion all the time, and routinely “run afoul” of official directives doing so. The only requirement is that are able to articulate a reasonable basis for doing so. Longo went on to testify that in his expert opinion Porter’s conduct in not belting Gray was, in fact, “objectively reasonable.”

Whoa, wait.

The Prosecution is arguing that the new rules imposed a legal duty to act, and the defense has a retired Baltimore cop on the stand saying cops ignore rules and legal duties to act all the time? And the author thinks this helps to clear Porter of criminal charges based on his failure to act?

I am not inclined to "wait" for ill-informed objection after the objector was already provided the facts. The Prosecution is claiming (without substantive evidence) that the new rule should be treated as it it were a legal duty to act. As it is an unproven and empty claim that it is, there is (technically) no need for defense witnesses to show otherwise. But they have.

Police Chief Timothy Longo is not just a retired Baltimore cop. He was in the Baltimore Police Department for 18 years, including command positions, and also an independent monitor for the Department of Justice consent judgment for the Cincinnati police department. Today he is Police Chief of Charlottesville VA.

But you knew that when making an off-hand snark, right?

\We can recall from Porter’s own testimony yesterday that he was indeed able to articulate a reasonable rationale for not entering the van the buckle in Gray, including the very tight quarters that would require him to place his sidearm within Gray’s reach.

That would only sound reasonable if the cops weren't within arm's reach of the guy when they handcuffed him and put him into the back of the van. But since they were, and since a cop had to get within arm's reach a short while later to put Gray in leg shackles, and since cops have to get within arm's reach of suspects in police vans to get them out again, I think Cheif Longo and the author are blowing smoke.

Did you actually read the paragraph you quoted? a) there were unspecified reasons from prior testimony and b) the act of him, alone in the van, buckling in the suspect would have put his sidearm within grays reach in a tight space.

Where and when other multiple cops handcuffed and leg shackled Grey is irrelevant to Porter's situation.

Longo also noted that even if there existed such a legal duty, that duty fell upon other officers. ...

Ah, so if there's a duty to act it was someone else's duty, not the defendants, hmm?

Yes..."hmmmmmm".

In addition, Longo testified that orders such as the seatbelt directive were grounds only for internal administrative discipline, not criminal liability. He reportedly stated numerous times that broken general orders should be dealt with administratively, not criminally (resulting in an objection from the prosecution).

Conclusion: It seems extremely unlikely that a reasonable jury could unanimously conclude that the prosecution has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there existed a legal duty for Porter to buckle Gray into the van.

Only if you accept Longo's apologetics as proper analysis of the legal requirements for Porter to fasten Gray's seat belt and summon the requested medical aid. Because if you don't accept his assertions that cops are exempt from legal requirements to act whenever they don't feel like acting, then the argument that Porter's failure to act amounted to criminal negligence remains pretty solid.

You mean only if you arbitrary decide not to accept Longo's expert testimony because...er...ummm...you just feel like it. To underscore:

It is, indeed, possible for a failure to act to provide the basis for involuntary manslaughter, but only where: (1)(a) there existed and (b) the defendant was aware (or should have been aware) that there existed a legal duty to act, (2) the defendant was aware the circumstances raised the legal duty, and (3) the defendant knew or should have known that the failure to meet their legal duty presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim’s life.

You (and the prosecution) can't come within a country-mile of meeting those three requirements.

Porter is innocent of legal wrong-doing, in spite of the wishful thinking of the lynch mob.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And shows the prosecution's case is garbage. Time to acquit.

Are you kidding? If Gray's fatal injury was sudden, it was definitely due to his treatment inside the van. The police officers involved are entirely culpable.

The problem is that that's not what he's charged with doing.

You can't convict someone of something they aren't charged with.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Jury is deliberating.

Baltimore police Officer William Porter is charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment.

If convicted, the officer faces a maximum sentence of 10 years or a minimum of probation.

 

[maxparrish]

Jury is deliberating.

Baltimore police Officer William Porter is charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment.

If convicted, the officer faces a maximum sentence of 10 years or a minimum of probation.

It may be impossible for Porter to get a fair trial in Baltimore, but if the jury has a working IQ over 95 Porter should be found not guilty. From my readings, its pretty clear that like the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution is depending on confusing the jury with irrelevancies, and appealing to emotion through histrionics.

For example, its been reported that Bledsoe grabbed her suit collar and pulls it to her mouth, as if it were a lapel mounted microphone, mimicking an officer making a radio call, and says, “I need a medic. That’s all it would have taken.” She snarled at the idea of "jailitis" complaints, making out Porter to be a liar, and offered theater as she held up a seatbelt and clicked it shut, asking “How long does that take?”.

Later she intones to the "educated" jury: “With great power, comes great responsibility. You know who said that? Voltaire. And Spiderman.”

In wrapping up his closing, Bledsoe told the jury the state was asking them to hold Porter “responsible for the oath that he took, for his job, and for being a human being.”

When you don't have a case, you pound the table. In this case, she was pounding the air...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Jury is deliberating.

It may be impossible for Porter to get a fair trial in Baltimore,

Why don't you wait for the verdict before complaining about it.

 

[maxparrish]

It may be impossible for Porter to get a fair trial in Baltimore,

Why don't you wait for the verdict before complaining about it.

It's never too early to remind posters of a possible miscarriage of justice. These cases should have been tried in any other place than highly charged and polarized Baltimore.

 

[Derec]

Setting the stage for a possible appeal:
Freddie Gray Trial: Lawyers for Baltimore Police Officer Seek Mistrial

Also, how blinded by the #BLM propaganda do you have to be to name a youth empowerment center after a drug dealer?
Baltimore Church Dedicating Youth Center To Freddie Gray

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Setting the stage for a possible appeal:
Freddie Gray Trial: Lawyers for Baltimore Police Officer Seek Mistrial

Pretty late in the game for this one, they must be worried. But might as well play the card. Also would the possibility of a mistrial require a new trail where the possibility of conviction is also high?

 

[Derec]

Pretty late in the game for this one, they must be worried. But might as well play the card.

The problem is that it just happened. The Baltimore public schools sent out a letter referencing violence as a result of a verdict not favorable to the #BLM crowd. The danger is that this letter could unduly influence the jurors.

Also would the possibility of a mistrial require a new trail where the possibility of conviction is also high?

It would not require a new trial although Mosby would almost certainly want to bring one. And I don't think the possibility of a conviction in a fair trial would be all that high. If the jurors go by the evidence, and not the fear that a non-guilty verdict will cause violent riots like earlier in the year, they will have to vote "not guilty" here.

 

[ksen]

I see the pro-police people are already getting their talking points in order for when a guilty verdict comes down.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The request for mistrial has been rejected.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The request for mistrial has been rejected.

Ya, by a bought judge who's using the case to further his liberal political agenda and doesn't care how many innocent people get railroaded in his mad pursuit of power.

 

[Mumbles]

I see the pro-police people are already getting their talking points in order for when a guilty verdict comes down.

I wish I could share your optimism when it comes to convicting police...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The jury has rejected Subway, demand Chipoltle or Taco Bell for lunch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Setting the stage for a possible appeal:
Freddie Gray Trial: Lawyers for Baltimore Police Officer Seek Mistrial

Also, how blinded by the #BLM propaganda do you have to be to name a youth empowerment center after a drug dealer?
Baltimore Church Dedicating Youth Center To Freddie Gray

Don't blame BLM, blame the asshole police who killed him in their custody and made a rather worthless person a martyr. You remember that part, right? The part where he was dead and not alive anymore?

Whether officers are found guilty of breaking the law, the officers involved undoubtably committed acts that led directly to his death. Their lawyers can do what they can to make their clients not legally liable, but they sure the heck are morally liable for that person's death.

 

[ksen]

I see the pro-police people are already getting their talking points in order for when a guilty verdict comes down.

I wish I could share your optimism when it comes to convicting police...

I'm not really that optimistic either. I'm just going by how frantic the pro-police people are getting as a verdict gets closer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It may be impossible for Porter to get a fair trial in Baltimore, but if the jury has a working IQ over 95 Porter should be found not guilty. From my readings, its pretty clear that like the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution is depending on confusing the jury with irrelevancies, and appealing to emotion through histrionics.

I don't see how this translates into not getting a fair trial. We permit theatrics in the courtroom.

I do agree it should result in a not-guilty. The side that tries to baffle with BS is almost inevitably in the wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Setting the stage for a possible appeal:
Freddie Gray Trial: Lawyers for Baltimore Police Officer Seek Mistrial

Pretty late in the game for this one, they must be worried. But might as well play the card. Also would the possibility of a mistrial require a new trail where the possibility of conviction is also high?

Didn't you read it? They brought it up at this point because the trigger they are talking about just happened.

 

[Derec]

The jury has rejected Subway, demand Chipoltle or Taco Bell for lunch.

An obvious and transparent attempt to get sick in order to get out of deliberations. The judge should find them in contempt.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The jury has rejected Subway, demand Chipoltle or Taco Bell for lunch.

I predict a hung jury, as in hung over the toilet bowl puking their guts out.