Police Driver Acquitted RE: Freddie Gray

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Indeed.

**CptJake**

I wonder how this works for the 5 cops charged. I would hate to be the driver...

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
I wonder how this works for the 5 cops charged. I would hate to be the driver...

Initial arresters-they are off. It was asinine grandstanding to charge them with something the first place.
The ones in charge of the prisoner in transport-they are in trouble.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
CptJake wrote:
I wonder how this works for the 5 cops charged. I would hate to be the driver...

Initial arresters-they are off. It was asinine grandstanding to charge them with something the first place.
The ones in charge of the prisoner in transport-they are in trouble.

Indeed... one's neck doesn't snap on its own. Whomever's responsible to secure the passenger should face at least, involuntary manslaughter.

**whembly**

Update: Baltimore approves $6.4 million settlement for Freddie Gray's family

(CNN)Baltimore officials approved a $6.4 million deal Wednesday to settle all civil claims tied to the death of Freddie Gray.

Gray suffered a fatal spinal injury while he was transported in a Baltimore police van in April.

The settlement does not "represent any judgment" on the guilt or innocence of the six police officers charged in the case, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said. "This settlement represents an opportunity to bring closure to the Gray family, the community and the city."

Rawlings-Blake is part of a five-person panel called the Board of Estimates that handles the city's financial affairs and approved the settlement.

Gray's family negotiated the deal with city attorneys, a source close to the family told CNN.

"All of us realize that money cannot, will not -- there's no possibility -- to bring back a loved one," the mayor said. "I hope that this settlement will bring a level of closure for the family, for the police department and for our city."

She and others on the panel said that the decision to settle with the family was weighed against the high cost of fighting an anticipated civil suit.

"We can avoid years and years of protracted civil litigation," Rawlings-Blake said, which would be a "significant expense."

The officers charged in Gray's death are not named in the settlement, said City Solicitor George Nilson.

The agreement "spares us all having the scab of April of this year picked over and over and over for five and six years to come," he said.

Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby has said Gray's injury in April occurred because he was handcuffed and shackled -- but not buckled in -- in the police van. Six officers will stand trial on charges ranging from assault to murder. All six have pleaded not guilty.

Gray family attorney Billy Murphy said settling potential civil claims without litigation was "an extraordinary result." Litigation, he said, puts family members "through hell."

If a civil case went to court, he added, "it could easily have taken three years to resolve, and no grieving family wants to go through that," he said. "And our city would not want to go through that."

Police disapprove of settlement
But the head of Baltimore's police union, which represents the six accused officers, said before the announcement that a settlement would be premature.

"To suggest that there is any reason to settle prior to the adjudication of the pending criminal cases is obscene and without regard to the fiduciary responsibility owed to (taxpayers)," said Gene Ryan, president of the Baltimore Fraternal Order of Police.

"There has been no civil litigation filed, nor has there been any guilt determined that would require such a ridiculous reaction."

Ryan had urged the city committee to reject the settlement pact.

"This news threatens to interrupt any progress made toward restoring the relationship between the members of the Baltimore Police Department and the Baltimore city government," he said.

In comments to reporters later Wednesday morning, the mayor reacted to Ryan's comments.

"Gene's statements continue to baffle me, because what this settlment does is remove any (civil) liability from the six officers," she said.

The settlement, she said, ensures that however each officer's criminal trial plays out, they cannot be sued in civil court.

Gray's death sparked outrage that led to days of massive protests, including some that turned violent. Buildings went up in flames, and local businesses were devastated by vandalism and looting -- despite the Gray family's pleas for peace.

The mayor and Murphy said they welcome the city police department using body cameras. Murphy said a body camera program could be implemented as early as this month.

Complete Freddie Gray coverage

So the city settled for something that wasn't proven yet? Weird...

One could argue that they have just completely poisoned the well as far as the jury pool for the officers...

O.o

**d-usa**

You settle because you know that years of litigation is more trouble than it's worth and you would rather have a known result instead of uncertainty in the future. You don't settle because you know what you did or didn't do.

**Ouze**

Beyond the fact that of course, litigation brings with it discovery, sworn testimony, and other things the corrupt would prefer to avoid.

It's not like it's their money, after all.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Beyond the fact that of course, litigation brings with it discovery, sworn testimony, and other things the corrupt would prefer to avoid.

It's not like it's their money, after all.

Of course... we know *why* they did this...

It's just that, they just made the prosecutor's job more difficult by potentially poisoning the jury pool (which is pretty poisoned if you ask me).

I want a rigorous and fair trial for those officers (and hoping for at least a negligence charge).

**Peter Wiggin**

Verviedi wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?

These rioters need shooting.

Rubber bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A water cannon has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.

CS gas takes the piss right out of 95% of "spirited protesters." Water cannons will NEVER be used in the US due to the history of firehoses and the civil rights stuff in the 60's.

**Psienesis**

Peter Wiggin wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that perplexes me is why the curfew isn't being imposed this evening but tomorrow?

These rioters need shooting.

Rubber bullets are extremely inefficient against such a mob. A water cannon has more shock value and is more effective at clearing large amounts of hostiles at short range.

CS gas takes the piss right out of 95% of "spirited protesters." Water cannons will NEVER be used in the US due to the history of firehoses and the civil rights stuff in the 60's.

The WTO riots, and those of us who were in them, would like to offer a counter-claim.

**Jihadin**

I was at Lewis at that time. I recall no water cannons being used.

**MrDwhitey**

Can't find any mention of water cannons used in the US recently.

Anyone with sources on use?

**Psienesis**

Jihadin wrote:
I was at Lewis at that time. I recall no water cannons being used.

I'm talking about the effectiveness of CS. Get exposed to it enough, and it's just refreshingly-spicy.

**IronWarLeg**

Psienesis wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
I was at Lewis at that time. I recall no water cannons being used.

I'm talking about the effectiveness of CS. Get exposed to it enough, and it's just refreshingly-spicy.

Yeah, in boot camp we had a guy that grew up somewhere in South America that apparently had a bunch of riots, who, when we did the gas training, just stood there and walked out when it was his turn. Everyone was outside coughing up their guts and this guy was just tearing up a little like he had just seen a very sad movie but was too manly to cry too much about it. When asked, he just said you eventually build up a tolerance and at this point it just helped clear up his sinuses a bit. On that note, after I got out of there and my face stopped leaking I had never been able to breath through my nose better lol.

**hotsauceman1**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Beyond the fact that of course, litigation brings with it discovery, sworn testimony, and other things the corrupt would prefer to avoid.

It's not like it's their money, after all.

Of course... we know *why* they did this...

It's just that, they just made the prosecutor's job more difficult by potentially poisoning the jury pool (which is pretty poisoned if you ask me).

I want a rigorous and fair trial for those officers (and hoping for at least a negligence charge).

How does it make it more difficult? wouldnt a jury hearing about this mean they are more likely to be swayed to the prosecuters?
Unless you mean it makes it more likely a mistrial will come out of it.

**-Shrike-**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
How does it make it more difficult? wouldnt a jury hearing about this mean they are more likely to be swayed to the prosecuters?

That's the point. The defence will argue that the jury are already affected by hearing about this, and are therefore more likely to convict regardless of the events during the trial.

**d-usa**

It just assumes that a city this huge is unable to find less than 100 people who are able to actually listen to facts and evidence. Will there be people who think that the settlement by the city means that the officers are guilty? Probably. But that is why you do the whole thing where you ask jurors questions before the trials. If they are unable to find unbiased jurors after actually interviewing them they can always move the trial then.

**whembly**

The driver was on trial? wut?
Police driver acquitted of all charges in Freddie Gray death

BALTIMORE (AP) — A judge acquitted a police driver of all charges on Thursday in the death of 25-year-old arrestee Freddie Gray, whose broken neck on the way to the station set off Baltimore's worst riots in decades.

Six officers were charged in Gray's death, but only Officer Caesar Goodson was accused of "depraved heart" murder. Gray was fatally injured after officers bound his hands and feet and Goodson left him unprotected by a seat belt that prosecutors say would have kept him from slamming into the van's metal walls.

Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry Williams also found Goodson not guilty of manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and reckless endangerment after five days of testimony in the non-jury trial.

Williams said the state failed to show that Goodson knew he'd harm Gray by leaving him unbuckled, or that he was aware of the injury.

"The state failed to prove the defendant knew or should have known that Mr. Gray needed medical care," the judge said.

"Unlike in a shooting or a stabbing, or a car accident, this injury manifests itself internally," Williams said, citing conflicting testimony from medical experts. "If the doctors weren't clear, how would a person without medical training know?"

The judge also said the state failed to prove Goodson gave Gray a "rough ride."

"The state had a duty to show the defendant corruptly failed in his duty, not just that he made a mistake," the judge said.

Outside the courthouse, a small group of protesters chanted: "We can't stop. We won't stop, till killer cops are in cell blocks."

Protests and rioting after Gray's death on April 19, 2015 set the city on fire, forcing Maryland to bring in the National Guard. The unrest forced the city's mayor to abandon her re-election campaign, and the Department of Justice opened an investigation into allegations of widespread police abuse.

The Democratic nominee to become Baltimore's next mayor, State Sen. Catherine Pugh, issued a statement pleading for patience.

"Protests are a vital part of democracy, but to destroy the homes and businesses many people have worked very hard to build is unacceptable. Although people may disagree with the verdict, it is important to respect each other and to respect our neighborhoods and our communities," Pugh said.

Prosecutors said Goodson was criminally negligent when he failed to buckle Gray into a seat belt or call for medical aid after Gray indicated that he wanted to go to a hospital. But Goodson wouldn't talk to investigators or take the stand at trial, leaving the state with slim evidence of intent to harm.

The acquittal of Goodson, 46, is perhaps the most significant blow to State Attorney Marilyn Mosby's efforts to hold police accountable for Gray's death.

Last month, the same judge acquitted Officer Edward Nero of misdemeanor charges, and in December, he declared a mistrial after a jury failed to agree on manslaughter and other charges against Officer William Porter.

Porter faces a retrial in September, and three other officers have yet to be tried.

Gray was arrested April 12 after running from an officer on bike patrol outside a public housing project not far from the Western District station house. A neighbor's video showed him handcuffed behind his back and hoisted into Goodson's van.

The van made a total of six stops that day, and Gray was unresponsive on arrival at the station house 45 minutes later. Prosecutors said Goodson was there throughout and checked on Gray during the third and fourth stops, so he should have known Gray was in distress. They said his failure to call a medic amounts to murder.

A prosecution expert testified that Gray could not possibly have broken his own neck. Prosecutors said the injury happened somewhere between the second and fourth stops, when Goodson and Porter lifted Gray off the floor.

Porter testified that Gray was lethargic, but could breathe and speak, and didn't seem injured. Prosecutors countered that the initial injury became critical as the trip continued.

Second-degree "depraved heart" murder, which carries up to 30 years in jail, would mean that Goodson was so negligent in his inaction that he cast aside any consideration for Gray's life.

During opening statements, prosecutors for the first time accused Goodson of giving Gray a "rough ride," intentionally leaving him unbuckled "to bounce him around in the back of the van."

But by closing arguments, they all but abandoned the theory, saying Goodson's failure to belt Gray in under the circumstances was sufficient to prove the intent necessary for a murder conviction.

"Officer Goodson never calls a medic, he never takes Freddie Gray to the hospital," said Deputy State's Attorney Jan Bledsoe. "He has breached his duty, and because of that breach Freddie Gray's life was shortened."

The judge seemed skeptical, peppering prosecutors with questions and asking what evidence they had supporting the "rough ride" theory. What if Gray had emerged from the van unhurt, despite being unbuckled, and was found to be falsely claiming injury in order to avoid jail?

Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow said the failure to belt him in would still be a crime, although a difficult one to prosecute.

Goodson's attorney Matthew Fraling fiercely rejected the allegations, telling the judge that Goodson was a "gentle" officer who didn't buckle him in because Gray was exhibiting "violent and erratic" behavior, citing witness testimony that he was making the wagon shake back and forth by kicking and flailing inside.

Fraling also said Gray said yes when Porter asked if he wanted to go to a hospital only because Gray hoped to avoid jail.

"They have failed to cobble together any type of case with reasonable inferences, let alone evidence," he said. "The mere fact that harm resulted doesn't mean the Officer Goodson's conduct is the cause of that harm."

Goodson's acquittal may impact the remaining cases. Officer Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice are scheduled to stand trial in July on charges of assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office; Rice also faces a manslaughter charge.

All the officers but Goodson have filed defamation lawsuits against Mosby and Maj. Sam Cogen of the sheriff's office, who signed the charging documents. The officers claim the criminal charges amounted to false and damaging information.

It *is* interesting that the driver asked for a "bench trial"...

Also, Mosby and the prosecution ain't looking too sharp here.

EDIT: pm'ed mod to change the title...

**Frazzled**

I believe they are now 0 - 3.
I could see a bench trial. In that toxic environment a fair and impartial jury is a joke.

**CptJake**

whembly wrote:
The driver was on trial? wut?

Why wouldn't he be? Typically the driver/vehicle operator is responsible for the safety of the occupant.

**whembly**

CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
The driver was on trial? wut?

Why wouldn't he be? Typically the driver/vehicle operator is responsible for the safety of the occupant.

I've been reading the case... the prosecution tried to nail him for "rough ride" here too.

Surprisingly, prosecution have been repeatedly found to have concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense... jeez...

**CptJake**

I'm not sure it is surprising. If I remember correctly the DA was hell bent on confirming the guilty sentence she passed on the cops way before the trials started.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
The driver was on trial? wut?

Why wouldn't he be? Typically the driver/vehicle operator is responsible for the safety of the occupant.

I've been reading the case... the prosecution tried to nail him for "rough ride" here too.

Surprisingly, prosecution have been repeatedly found to have concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense... jeez...

More color on the exculpatory evidence?

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
The driver was on trial? wut?

Why wouldn't he be? Typically the driver/vehicle operator is responsible for the safety of the occupant.

I've been reading the case... the prosecution tried to nail him for "rough ride" here too.

Surprisingly, prosecution have been repeatedly found to have concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense... jeez...

More color on the exculpatory evidence?

1) prosecution withheld a key witness in the same van that he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle.
2) prosecution withheld that the medical examiner thought it was an accident in initial review.
3)here's some others:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-goodson-trial-day5-20160615-story.html

**Monkey Tamer**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whembly wrote:
CptJake wrote:
whembly wrote:
The driver was on trial? wut?

Why wouldn't he be? Typically the driver/vehicle operator is responsible for the safety of the occupant.

I've been reading the case... the prosecution tried to nail him for "rough ride" here too.

Surprisingly, prosecution have been repeatedly found to have concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense... jeez...

More color on the exculpatory evidence?

1) prosecution withheld a key witness in the same van that he heard banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle.
2) prosecution withheld that the medical examiner thought it was an accident in initial review.
3)here's some others:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-goodson-trial-day5-20160615-story.html

That's a good way to lose your law license. The ARDC doesn't screw around with prosecutors doing Brady violations.

**Ouze**

I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.

I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.

**Breotan**

Ouze wrote:
I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.

I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.

I believe this is the impetus for the city settling the wrongful death lawsuit.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
I don't understand how the police can scoop up a dude for "running from the cops" - which is not a crime - then detain him for having a knife the State's Attorney said was lawful - then fail to secure him properly despite him being in custody - and then functionally bludgeon him to death, without anyone involved being responsible for his death.

I mean, I don't expect equal standards of justice in this country, or that police are generally held responsible for their actions, but even for the US this is a bit much to swallow.

1. Running is reasonable suspicion to pursue.
2. Supposedly its a switchblade. Please find me a place in the US where a switchblade is legal. Mine was a family heirloom, just a mere paper weight...
3. Fail to secure: Now thats a situation. Mischarged perhaps.

**Desubot**

Thinking about and then looking it up Switch blades are surprisingly legal in a handful of states.

and a good chuck of them are also situational. even for concealed carry.

definitely not going to be legal in CA :/

Also i believe it also depends on some jurisdictions.

In CA, Los Angeles and areas around it have different regulations on knives.

its really silly :/

its supposedly legal in Maryland but only open carry.

**Ouze**

More to the point, it was not a switchblade. Although the police dispute this, what I said was that the State's Attorney said it was a lawful knife, and that is accurate. It was a spring assisted knife which pops once you flick it partially open which is not legally a switchblade. Switchblades are automatic knives which operate via a button or switch.

Frazzled wrote:
. Fail to secure: Now thats a situation. Mischarged perhaps.

Anyway, 2 of the charges the driver skated on were misconduct in office and reckless endangerment (added by the grand jury) which again seems pretty incredible.

We always like to think that putting cameras on cops will alleviate misconduct, but what's the point? The cops that killed a guy with an illegal choke hold, on video, all skated, and in this case the basic facts - that he was not secured in the van, was not given medical attention, and was treated so roughly his neck broke and he died - aren't in dispute. So the real problem seems like our reluctance to convict police officers who perform criminal acts.