Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[Loren Pechtel]

The prosecution case presented in Porter's trial leaves open the probability that Gray's injuries were self-inflicted. That is, there was no hint the prosecution is pursuing a theory that the police caused the injury. Instead, the serious charges against Porter, White, and Goodson surround an alleged failure to timely render aid when requested. If Gray was the habitual drama queen as his frequent police encounters suggest, then the likelihood he would be disbelieved when he actually had an injury should not be surprising. for shizzle

I think you are confusing probability with possibility--and an extremely remote one at that. Gray was handcuffed and shackled. He was also in custody and under the supervision of multiple police officers. Which means that they are in fact, culpable for any harm that befell him. If he attempted suicide, they would be duty bound to prevent it.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Grey had the ability or the will to injure himself. There is a great deal of evidence that the fatal injury occurred as a direct result of negligence if not absolute malice on the part of the officers.

We know he was raising a ruckus in back for no reason. He very well might have done something stupid to try to continue to raise a ruckus despite being shackled.

 

[Sea of red]

I think you are confusing probability with possibility--and an extremely remote one at that. Gray was handcuffed and shackled. He was also in custody and under the supervision of multiple police officers. Which means that they are in fact, culpable for any harm that befell him. If he attempted suicide, they would be duty bound to prevent it.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Grey had the ability or the will to injure himself. There is a great deal of evidence that the fatal injury occurred as a direct result of negligence if not absolute malice on the part of the officers.

We know he was raising a ruckus in back for no reason. He very well might have done something stupid to try to continue to raise a ruckus despite being shackled.

How do we know that? The guy that was also prisoner that allegedly said that, recanted his statements as I recall. As for the police report: I wouldn't put too much money down on that being impartial, and not biased toward the police department.

 

[Toni]

I think you are confusing probability with possibility--and an extremely remote one at that. Gray was handcuffed and shackled. He was also in custody and under the supervision of multiple police officers. Which means that they are in fact, culpable for any harm that befell him. If he attempted suicide, they would be duty bound to prevent it.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Grey had the ability or the will to injure himself. There is a great deal of evidence that the fatal injury occurred as a direct result of negligence if not absolute malice on the part of the officers.

We know he was raising a ruckus in back for no reason. He very well might have done something stupid to try to continue to raise a ruckus despite being shackled.

No, we don't know he was 'raising a ruckus in back for no reason.' Or for a reason.

But even if he were 'raising a ruckus,' it is the responsibility and the duty of the officers who have taken him into custody to ensure his safety. They handcuffed him and put him in shackles. They failed to seatbelt him. He had no way of stabilizing himself against any falls that might occur due to the officers' actions. Anything that happened to him is their responsibility.

 

[maxparrish]

I think what you are seeing is the bitter clinger suspension of the higher brain functions. You can refer to all the evidence or give all reasoning you like, rote denial is nearly incurable.

Recall the old quote that you cannot reason someone out of something that they did not, originally, reason themselves into.

Freddie Gray was killed while in police custody, very likely because he was not appropriately secured to his seat, the driver chose to give him a "rough ride", and because the police who were responsible for his safety chose to ignore his pleas for medical assistance. The PD in this city has a documented history of similar behavior resulting in severe injury to other people in their custody. These are the facts of the case as we know them. Rote denial indeed.

Freddie Gray was killed, most likely in an accidental fall in the back of a police van. He was not "killed by seat belt" (a rather absurd notion, don't you think?). There is no evidence that the Police chose (or gave) him a rough ride - not even the prosecution has made that claim. His pleas for an inhaler (etc.) from the moment of his apprehension were most likely "jailitis" and, in any case, did not stem from the cause of his death.

There have been two documented deaths in the last two decades that might have been from intentional rough rides and falls. However, as there is no evidence (or even unsupported claim) of a rough ride in this instance (and certainly not by Porter, who did not drive) then those cases are irrelevant.

These are the ACTUAL facts as we know them, no matter how many rote falsehoods you choose to repeat.

If you bothered to read the ME quotes, the prosecution court statements, and other trial reports you would know that.

 

[Toni]

Freddie Gray was killed while in police custody, very likely because he was not appropriately secured to his seat, the driver chose to give him a "rough ride", and because the police who were responsible for his safety chose to ignore his pleas for medical assistance. The PD in this city has a documented history of similar behavior resulting in severe injury to other people in their custody. These are the facts of the case as we know them. Rote denial indeed.

Freddie Gray was killed, most likely in an accidental fall in the back of a police van. He was not "killed by seat belt" (a rather absurd notion, don't you think?). There is no evidence that the Police chose (or gave) him a rough ride - not even the prosecution has made that claim. His pleas for an inhaler (etc.) from the moment of his apprehension were most likely "jailitis" and, in any case, did not stem from the cause of his death.

There have been two documented deaths in the last two decades that might have been from intentional rough rides and falls. However, as there is no evidence (or even unsupported claim) of a rough ride in this instance (and certainly not by Porter, who did not drive) then those cases are irrelevant.

These are the ACTUAL facts as we know them, no matter how many rote falsehoods you choose to repeat.

If you bothered to read the ME quotes, the prosecution court statements, and other trial reports you would know that.

Even if his death occurred due to a simple accidental fall, the police are still negligent for failing to secure him in his seat and are responsible for his death. Criminally so.

 

[Arctish]

Freddie Gray was killed while in police custody, very likely because he was not appropriately secured to his seat, the driver chose to give him a "rough ride", and because the police who were responsible for his safety chose to ignore his pleas for medical assistance. The PD in this city has a documented history of similar behavior resulting in severe injury to other people in their custody. These are the facts of the case as we know them. Rote denial indeed.

Freddie Gray was killed, most likely in an accidental fall in the back of a police van. He was not "killed by seat belt" (a rather absurd notion, don't you think?).

I do. In fact, it's so absurd I wonder why you are introducing it.

There is no evidence that the Police chose (or gave) him a rough ride

Other than the unnecessarily long and circuitous route with lots of turns and iirc a few speed bumps.

- not even the prosecution has made that claim.

Because the choice of route wasn't up to Porter, the only officer brought to trial so far.

His pleas for an inhaler (etc.) from the moment of his apprehension were most likely "jailitis" and, in any case, did not stem from the cause of his death.

There have been two documented deaths in the last two decades that might have been from intentional rough rides and falls. However, as there is no evidence (or even unsupported claim) of a rough ride in this instance (and certainly not by Porter, who did not drive) then those cases are irrelevant.

These are the ACTUAL facts as we know them, no matter how many rote falsehoods you choose to repeat.

If you bothered to read the ME quotes, the prosecution court statements, and other trial reports you would know that.

We know that your "most likely jailitis" guess is coming from someone who wasn't there and isn't qualified to make that determination anyway.

 

[maxparrish]

Freddie Gray was killed, most likely in an accidental fall in the back of a police van. He was not "killed by seat belt" (a rather absurd notion, don't you think?). There is no evidence that the Police chose (or gave) him a rough ride - not even the prosecution has made that claim. His pleas for an inhaler (etc.) from the moment of his apprehension were most likely "jailitis" and, in any case, did not stem from the cause of his death.

There have been two documented deaths in the last two decades that might have been from intentional rough rides and falls. However, as there is no evidence (or even unsupported claim) of a rough ride in this instance (and certainly not by Porter, who did not drive) then those cases are irrelevant.

These are the ACTUAL facts as we know them, no matter how many rote falsehoods you choose to repeat.

If you bothered to read the ME quotes, the prosecution court statements, and other trial reports you would know that.

Even if his death occurred due to a simple accidental fall, the police are still negligent for failing to secure him in his seat and are responsible for his death. Criminally so.

Being "at fault" in choosing not to seat belt Gray may, or may not, be remiss in a work duty. That does not make him responsible for Gray's death. If anyone is responsible, it is Gray. The WORST that can be said (on a moral level) is that he is responsible for not (passively) stopping Gray from making a bad choice.

Even so, Porter had no moral responsibility to prevent what remains the free choice of another to risk there own lives. When you take away a persons freedom, there are many things in which they do not have a choice. If and when they eat, when they are permitted to sleep, where they are housed, etc. Therefore the authorities are responsible for making those choices for them. If inmates die because they fail to feed them, then those who failed to feed them are responsible.

However, Porter was not made to stand. He made the reckless and clearly stupid choice to stand when he was bound hand and foot (perhaps to make more noise), and Porter had no moral duty to prevent his actions. On a moral level, it matters not if a prisoner wants to kill themselves, starve themselves to death, or risk Hep C by tattooing themselves. And if they want to stand in a moving van, in spite of warnings not to, then let him.

If he dies, he dies. His choice.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

If I failed to follow safety procedures at my job, i would be responsible for that death. Why is this different?

 

[Toni]

Even if his death occurred due to a simple accidental fall, the police are still negligent for failing to secure him in his seat and are responsible for his death. Criminally so.

Being "at fault" in choosing not to seat belt Gray may, or may not, be remiss in a work duty. That does not make him responsible for Gray's death. If anyone is responsible, it is Gray. The WORST that can be said (on a moral level) is that he is responsible for not (passively) stopping Gray from making a bad choice.

Even so, Porter had no moral responsibility to prevent what remains the free choice of another to risk there own lives. When you take away a persons freedom, there are many things in which they do not have a choice. If and when they eat, when they are permitted to sleep, where they are housed, etc. Therefore the authorities are responsible for making those choices for them. If inmates die because they fail to feed them, then those who failed to feed them are responsible.

However, Porter was not made to stand. He made the reckless and clearly stupid choice to stand when he was bound hand and foot (perhaps to make more noise), and Porter had no moral duty to prevent his actions. On a moral level, it matters not if a prisoner wants to kill themselves, starve themselves to death, or risk Hep C by tattooing themselves. And if they want to stand in a moving van, in spite of warnings not to, then let him.

If he dies, he dies. His choice.

Yes, actually, it DOES make the officers responsible for Gray's death. Gray was not in the van of his own volition, and was handcuffed and shackled, rendering him incapable of balancing his body against any sudden turns, stops or bumps in the road, of which there seem to have been many.

Jailers ARE held responsible for preventing prisoner suicides, which is why such things as belts, shoe laces, any medications, etc. are typically not in cells.

You are extremely confused if you think that this is about Porter being made to stand when bound. It was Gray who was bound. You have zero idea what happened in the van, aside from the fact that it involved sufficient force to cause GREY's death.

You are frankly just confused.

 

[laughing dog]

If I failed to follow safety procedures at my job, i would be responsible for that death. Why is this different?

You are not a police officer.

 

[maxparrish]

Being "at fault" in choosing not to seat belt Gray may, or may not, be remiss in a work duty. That does not make him responsible for Gray's death. If anyone is responsible, it is Gray. The WORST that can be said (on a moral level) is that he is responsible for not (passively) stopping Gray from making a bad choice.

Even so, Porter had no moral responsibility to prevent what remains the free choice of another to risk there own lives. When you take away a persons freedom, there are many things in which they do not have a choice. If and when they eat, when they are permitted to sleep, where they are housed, etc. Therefore the authorities are responsible for making those choices for them. If inmates die because they fail to feed them, then those who failed to feed them are responsible.

However, Porter was not made to stand. He made the reckless and clearly stupid choice to stand when he was bound hand and foot (perhaps to make more noise), and Porter had no moral duty to prevent his actions. On a moral level, it matters not if a prisoner wants to kill themselves, starve themselves to death, or risk Hep C by tattooing themselves. And if they want to stand in a moving van, in spite of warnings not to, then let him.

If he dies, he dies. His choice.

Yes, actually, it DOES make the officers responsible for Gray's death. Gray was not in the van of his own volition, and was handcuffed and shackled, rendering him incapable of balancing his body against any sudden turns, stops or bumps in the road, of which there seem to have been many.

Jailers ARE held responsible for preventing prisoner suicides, which is why such things as belts, shoe laces, any medications, etc. are typically not in cells.

You did not show that my factual statement on Gray's choice, or the followup deductive reasoning, was in error. Rather, gave irrelevant speculations on Gray being put in a police van, provided speculations on turns and bumps, and then concluded with confusion over what jailers (on a moral level) are responsible for.

The moral issue is not over those things in which Grey did not have a choice. However, he was "jailed" within the van because he made a choice to carry an illegal weapon - that was his choice. And within that context he still had an informed choice on his own safety, to either stay in his seat or prone on the floor, or to risk serious injury by standing while shackled.

The direct causative agent was Gray's act of volition. There seems to be little evidence that his seeming choice to stand was coerced or forced upon him just because he was in the van or because of fraud; there was nothing lost by Gray in staying seated or prone on the floor.

IF he had been forced to stand because of being brutalized by 'a rough ride', or because he was told it was safe to do so, THEN you have a moral point to build on. But no evidence of such was introduced. (Nor is there any evidence that the injury occurred while prone or seated).

Finally, jailers are not MORALLY responsible for preventing prisoner suicides. That the law wishes to take away the right and ability of the prisoner to commit suicide is, in part, a dubious moral restriction. No one is morally compelled to stop an adult from making risky choices that might cause his/her death. There may be reasons to keep a prisoner from taking their own life, but 'for their own safety' is not one of them (and preventing such by restraint is often inhumane).

You are extremely confused if you think that this is about Porter being made to stand when bound. It was Gray who was bound. You have zero idea what happened in the van, aside from the fact that it involved sufficient force to cause GREY's death.

You are frankly just confused.

And you are either confused, snarky, (or not serious) if you actually think, after my numerous posts and cites on Gray and Porter, that this "slip of the tongue" is anything other than just that - whether you spell Gray underlined and bolded as "GREY"...or not.

Finally, if we are ignorant of what happened, you shouldn't be charging an assistant to the driver with involuntary manslaughter based on "speculations".

 

[maxparrish]

If I failed to follow safety procedures at my job, i would be responsible for that death. Why is this different?

Without knowing your job, the context, or the safety procedure in question that broad claim is absurd. In general, industrial accidents don't result in foreman being charged with manslaughter.

 

[laughing dog]

You did not show that my factual statement on Gray's choice, or the followup deductive reasoning, was in error. Rather, gave irrelevant speculations on Gray being put in a police van, provided speculations on turns and bumps, and then concluded with confusion over what jailers (on a moral level) are responsible for. ...

Your entire argument ignores two essential facts: Gray was not secured in his seat (a violation of dept. policy) and that Gray's complaints about not feeling well were ignored. Those two facts are essential to the case.

- - - Updated - - -

If I failed to follow safety procedures at my job, i would be responsible for that death. Why is this different?

Without knowing your job, the context, or the safety procedure in question that broad claim is absurd. In general, industrial accidents don't result in foreman being charged with manslaughter.

They might when the foreman deliberately ignored company policy and then refused to get the victim medical treatment.

 

[Derec]

A Morgan State University (which is in Baltimore) professor wants white "allies" to give him (and other blacks, or "Blacks" as he calls them) all their money.

So laughing dog, Toni et al, pay up or you are no longer "allies".
I feel sorry for his students, especially white ones. You just know this guy is an affirmative action admission for both undergrand and PhD and also an affirmative action hire. Nobody who says something this stupid can be a merit hire.

 

[arkirk]

If I failed to follow safety procedures at my job, i would be responsible for that death. Why is this different?

Without knowing your job, the context, or the safety procedure in question that broad claim is absurd. In general, industrial accidents don't result in foreman being charged with manslaughter.

You appear to have a limited understanding of the word responsibility. It was being used to imply that the actions he would have taken would have caused a death and made him responsible. Whether or not he was charged, hr still might feel responsible for having caused the death of another person.

 

[maxparrish]

Freddie Gray was killed, most likely in an accidental fall in the back of a police van. He was not "killed by seat belt" (a rather absurd notion, don't you think?). There is no evidence that the Police chose (or gave) him a rough ride - not even the prosecution has made that claim. His pleas for an inhaler (etc.) from the moment of his apprehension were most likely "jailitis" and, in any case, did not stem from the cause of his death.

There have been two documented deaths in the last two decades that might have been from intentional rough rides and falls. However, as there is no evidence (or even unsupported claim) of a rough ride in this instance (and certainly not by Porter, who did not drive) then those cases are irrelevant.

These are the ACTUAL facts as we know them, no matter how many rote falsehoods you choose to repeat.

If you bothered to read the ME quotes, the prosecution court statements, and other trial reports you would know that.

Even if his death occurred due to a simple accidental fall, the police are still negligent for failing to secure him in his seat and are responsible for his death. Criminally so.

Not criminally so in Porter's case, and not likely so in the other cases.

Let's review:

The prosecution has conceded that Porter committed no affirmative act that actually caused Gray harm. They are attempted to convict him of involuntary manslaughter as an “act of omission.”

To prove that the prosecution had to prove that:

1) there was a legal duty to act.
2) the defendant knew, or should have known, there was a legal duty to act.
3) the defendant knew, or should have known, that the failure to perform their legal duty created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim’s life.

A legal duty arises from 'the operation of the law' or a contract. There was not a "legal duty" to seat buckle those placed in a van. Even if there was, there no evidence that the defendant knew it was a legal duty, and there is no evidence that he knew (or should have known) it created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim's life.

And for the second degree assault charge, Williams must have have acted with gross negligence, which is unproven.

Finally, on the charge of misconduct in office, Porter must have “corruptly failed” to do his duty as an officer, and with “evil motive.” Making an error judgment is not sufficient to support a guilty verdict on this charge, and again the prosecution failed to prove he corruptly failed with an evil motive.

 

[laughing dog]

A Morgan State University (which is in Baltimore) professor wants white "allies" to give him (and other blacks, or "Blacks" as he calls them) all their money.

So laughing dog, Toni et al, pay up or you are no longer "allies".
I feel sorry for his students, especially white ones. You just know this guy is an affirmative action admission for both undergrand and PhD and also an affirmative action hire. Nobody who says something this stupid can be a merit hire.

This gentleman attended Morehouse and Morgan State - both historically black institutions of higher learning. So your derailing swipe at AA is truly ignorance-based. More importantly, wtf does your response have to do with Freddie Gray?

 

[Toni]

Yes, actually, it DOES make the officers responsible for Gray's death. Gray was not in the van of his own volition, and was handcuffed and shackled, rendering him incapable of balancing his body against any sudden turns, stops or bumps in the road, of which there seem to have been many.

Jailers ARE held responsible for preventing prisoner suicides, which is why such things as belts, shoe laces, any medications, etc. are typically not in cells.

You did not show that my factual statement on Gray's choice, or the followup deductive reasoning, was in error. Rather, gave irrelevant speculations on Gray being put in a police van, provided speculations on turns and bumps, and then concluded with confusion over what jailers (on a moral level) are responsible for.

The moral issue is not over those things in which Grey did not have a choice. However, he was "jailed" within the van because he made a choice to carry an illegal weapon - that was his choice. And within that context he still had an informed choice on his own safety, to either stay in his seat or prone on the floor, or to risk serious injury by standing while shackled.

The direct causative agent was Gray's act of volition. There seems to be little evidence that his seeming choice to stand was coerced or forced upon him just because he was in the van or because of fraud; there was nothing lost by Gray in staying seated or prone on the floor.

IF he had been forced to stand because of being brutalized by 'a rough ride', or because he was told it was safe to do so, THEN you have a moral point to build on. But no evidence of such was introduced. (Nor is there any evidence that the injury occurred while prone or seated).

Finally, jailers are not MORALLY responsible for preventing prisoner suicides. That the law wishes to take away the right and ability of the prisoner to commit suicide is, in part, a dubious moral restriction. No one is morally compelled to stop an adult from making risky choices that might cause his/her death. There may be reasons to keep a prisoner from taking their own life, but 'for their own safety' is not one of them (and preventing such by restraint is often inhumane).

You are extremely confused if you think that this is about Porter being made to stand when bound. It was Gray who was bound. You have zero idea what happened in the van, aside from the fact that it involved sufficient force to cause GREY's death.

You are frankly just confused.

And you are either confused, snarky, (or not serious) if you actually think, after my numerous posts and cites on Gray and Porter, that this "slip of the tongue" is anything other than just that - whether you spell Gray underlined and bolded as "GREY"...or not.

Finally, if we are ignorant of what happened, you shouldn't be charging an assistant to the driver with involuntary manslaughter based on "speculations".

My points are legal ones, not moral ones. Jailers and police officers are legally responsible for the health and safety of the prisoners in their custody.

The transport of Grey to jail took a long, circuitous route rather than a direct one. It was what the officers described as a rough ride. This increases their culpability, even if we believe that Grey died as a result of 'standing up' and then accidentally falling rather than being thrown about by the movement of the van over the course of a route deliberately chosen to cause physical discomfort and fear.

 

[Toni]

Even if his death occurred due to a simple accidental fall, the police are still negligent for failing to secure him in his seat and are responsible for his death. Criminally so.

Not criminally so in Porter's case, and not likely so in the other cases.

Let's review:

The prosecution has conceded that Porter committed no affirmative act that actually caused Gray harm. They are attempted to convict him of involuntary manslaughter as an “act of omission.”

To prove that the prosecution had to prove that:

1) there was a legal duty to act.
2) the defendant knew, or should have known, there was a legal duty to act.
3) the defendant knew, or should have known, that the failure to perform their legal duty created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim’s life.

A legal duty arises from 'the operation of the law' or a contract. There was not a "legal duty" to seat buckle those placed in a van. Even if there was, there no evidence that the defendant knew it was a legal duty, and there is no evidence that he knew (or should have known) it created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim's life.

And for the second degree assault charge, Williams must have have acted with gross negligence, which is unproven.

Finally, on the charge of misconduct in office, Porter must have “corruptly failed” to do his duty as an officer, and with “evil motive.” Making an error judgment is not sufficient to support a guilty verdict on this charge, and again the prosecution failed to prove he corruptly failed with an evil motive.

Since the officers knowingly and willfully failed to follow departmental policy for ensuring the safety of a prisoner they were transporting, they certainly failed in their legal duties as police officers transporting their prisoner.

Since they deliberately made it a rough ride, the 'evil motive' is fulfilled.

 

[arkirk]

Not criminally so in Porter's case, and not likely so in the other cases.

Let's review:

The prosecution has conceded that Porter committed no affirmative act that actually caused Gray harm. They are attempted to convict him of involuntary manslaughter as an “act of omission.”

To prove that the prosecution had to prove that:

1) there was a legal duty to act.
2) the defendant knew, or should have known, there was a legal duty to act.
3) the defendant knew, or should have known, that the failure to perform their legal duty created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim’s life.

A legal duty arises from 'the operation of the law' or a contract. There was not a "legal duty" to seat buckle those placed in a van. Even if there was, there no evidence that the defendant knew it was a legal duty, and there is no evidence that he knew (or should have known) it created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim's life.

And for the second degree assault charge, Williams must have have acted with gross negligence, which is unproven.

Finally, on the charge of misconduct in office, Porter must have “corruptly failed” to do his duty as an officer, and with “evil motive.” Making an error judgment is not sufficient to support a guilty verdict on this charge, and again the prosecution failed to prove he corruptly failed with an evil motive.

Since the officers knowingly and willfully failed to follow departmental policy for ensuring the safety of a prisoner they were transporting, they certainly failed in their legal duties as police officers transporting their prisoner.

Since they deliberately made it a rough ride, the 'evil motive' is fulfilled.

What kind of coo coo jurist cannot see that?