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.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If only there was enough evidence (or more accurately ANY evidence) to support the charge the cops 'functionally bludgeon him to death'

The cops put him in a car. He was in their custody and they were responsible for him. This is not in dispute.
The cops did not secure him. This is not in dispute.
When he came out of the car, his neck was broken from a high energy impact. This is not in dispute.
His death was ruled a homicide. This is not in dispute.

However, when you add all of that up, no one is responsible, there is "no evidence" that a crime was committed, the cops are the good guys, and the prosecutor is the villain.

According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.
Does Baltimore need to work on it's policies regarding securing suspects in custody? Definitely- it just cost them millions of dollars.
Does that mean this was an intentional, criminal act? No.

It's not good guys and bad guys, it's what the evidence shows, department policies, and political agendas. You know, the usual ugly realities that don't lend themselves to easy side taking.

 jmurph wrote:

According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.

If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.

 Ouze wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

According to the lead investigator and police notes that were originally not turned over to defense, the medical examiner twice stated that the incident was an accident.
Was this a tragic death that was probably avoidable? Yes.

If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.

At the absolute minimum, the one responsible for securing the passenger should lose his job. As for criminal negligence... alas, the prosecution tried.

 Ouze wrote:
If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.

It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.

It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.

I'm happy to defend it, and I have plenty of facts to back it up (like a death certificate labelled as a homicide, and the officers freely admitting they didn't secure him). As edgy as it is copying and pasting an entire post of mine used in a different set of "facts", adding nothing at all of your own, is, it's really not applicable since there was absolute zero evidence DWS rigged the primaries, and enough evidence in this case to secure 6 indictments and prosecutions. There are very few people in this thread or elsewhere who think the officers are innocent, simply that they were overcharged, too hastily charged, and then prosecuted incompetently. How many people here think that OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are totally guilt free, and the idea they may have committed murders just a fact free opinion, invented solely based on feelings?


However, I now realize that the best way to argue with you guys is to just copy and paste the same insipid arguments word for word until the thread gets locked within a few hours. That's what now passes for discourse here, right?

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If someone isn't secured, and is banged around so hard they break their neck, that's not an accident. It is negligence, and I think it's criminal negligence.

It appears you espousing an opinion that isn't really true, and that you have decided you like it and want to keep it without being forced to defend it, rather than that "what you are stating is true and you can show me some pretty good evidence for why that is". It's a very Newt Gringrichian view.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings, which are as Newt said, equally valid as facts and evidence.

I'm happy to defend it, and I have plenty of facts to back it up (like a death certificate labelled as a homicide, and the officers freely admitting they didn't secure him). As edgy as it is copying and pasting an entire post of mine used in a different set of "facts", adding nothing at all of your own, is, it's really not applicable since there was absolute zero evidence DWS rigged the primaries, and enough evidence in this case to secure 6 indictments and prosecutions. There are very few people in this thread or elsewhere who think the officers are innocent, simply that they were overcharged, too hastily charged, and then prosecuted incompetently. How many people here think that OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are totally guilt free, and the idea they may have committed murders just a fact free opinion, invented solely based on feelings?


However, I now realize that the best way to argue with you guys is to just copy and paste the same insipid arguments word for word until the thread gets locked. That's what now passes for discourse here, right?

You are an intelligent poster, you know that the coroner's report is not a legally binding judgement on a criminal case. You also know that not all homicides are criminal. The legal standard applied in a coroner's finding and a criminal trial are not equivalent.

The officer's admitting that they did not secure him seems quite likely to fall into the realm of civil law, and it's lower burden of proof.

So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings

The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.

It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So even though the legal system fully reviewed the facts, across several cases and had ample opportunity to review all the facts and evidence is it your contention that they erred in law? You clearly do so you feel they reached the wrong conclusion. You are equating your feelings with the fact of the matter.

I'm happy to move on because I can't argue with your feelings

The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.

It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.

1. In house policy does not equate to law. Maryland law does not in fact require it.

2. What evidence due you have counter to the assertions that Freddie Gray was acting violently in the vehicle, and likely caused the injuries to himself? There has been zero evidence presented that counters this.

3. Per Baltimore Police procedures, they are only required to provide medical attention when "necessary". There being no visible injuries, and him thrashing around at stops leading up to the point they did call for medical assistance, what evidence did the officers have that medical attention was "necessary"?

Again, and Dreadclaw stated, all of the evidence was weighed against the actual laws. An impartial judge on 3 different cases was completely unable to find any evidence that showed they broke a law they were charged for. You keep repeating the same points again and again. If it was that simple, then a different outcome would have occurred.

 djones520 wrote:
What evidence due you have counter to the assertions that Freddie Gray was acting violently in the vehicle, and likely caused the injuries to himself? There has been zero evidence presented that counters this.

On the one hand, we have some bloggers with a theory. On the other hand, we have:

"I have never seen it before. I’ve never seen somebody self-inflict a spinal cord injury in that way,” says Anand Veeravagu, Chief Neurosurgery Resident at Stanford University Medical Center who specializes in traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries.

“It’s hard for me to understand that, unless those terms [like ‘intentional’ and ‘injure himself’] are being used incorrectly. It’s hard for me to envision how a person could try to do that,” he says. “It would require them to basically hang themselves in a car where there isn’t anything to hang yourself with.”

"Unless somebody jumps off a two-story building and the blunt force breaks (their spinal cord), then no, it is not a viable solution to think someone did this to themselves," says Harminder Singh, a Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery at Stanford School of Medicine.

Veeravagu says that there are only a few ways you can injure your spine in a similar way to the injuries that ultimately led to Gray’s death. One, he says, is by a sharp injury, which is a direct penetrating injury—either somebody with a knife “who knows what they’re doing, or something else that cuts through, like a gunshot wound.”

The other way, more pertinent to Gray’s case, is by trauma, where the bones are fractured and the ligaments are torn as a result of force or impact.

“It is very difficult to sever your spinal cord without a known fracture,” says Veeravagu. “Often, when patients come in with this kind of injury, you’ll find they’ve been either in a car accident or something similar to that kind of impact.”

While every appeal to authority is fraught with peril, I feel pretty OK with deferring to the expert medical opinions listed above.

So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?

I guess those doctors never met my neighbor. He had the same kind of injury Freddy Grey did by falling off the third step of a step stool. He was mid 40's at the time.

As Freddy Grey had a history of injuring himself to make police look bad, and they didn't seat belt him in, it isn't beyond belief that a sudden turn or bump during a self-injury attempt could cause a sever injury.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?

The are lines among illegal activity, liable action, accidents, negligence, and coincidence. I don't think what they did was necessarily illegal. It was probably negligent, but it could also be coincidental if Gray had contributed actions to injure himself as well.

 Ouze wrote:
The police department had revised their seatbelt police to prevent injuries in transports. That policy was not followed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

Internal police policy documents are not legally binding criminal legislation. In the event that officers broke internal policy documents then civil liability would likely be more applicable, not your feeling of criminal liability. That is a fact.

 Ouze wrote:
During the ride, he suffered 3 fractured vertebrae and his spine was almost completely severed. That's a fact, not a feeling.

The evidence was before a court and the fact is that it was ruled to not be criminal. Again the facts would support civil liability and not the criminal charges that you feel are appropriate

 Ouze wrote:
The police commissioner confirmed that multiple officers knew he needed medical attention and did not get him any. That's a fact, not a feeling.

So yet again the fact is that you are highlighting negligence, which is typically associated with..... civil liability. Yet you feel that criminal liability applies when in multiple cases the evidence has been reviewed and it has been ruled that the evidence (otherwise known as fact) do not support criminal charges. But again you are entitled to feel that criminal charges are appropriate. The actual experts disagree with you. And that is a fact

 Ouze wrote:
It's clear that the most important thing here is for you to keep copying and pasting my own posts from a totally unrelated thread, as if they were the same, despite the circumstances being wholly different. Which, really, makes me the donkey-cave, if you think about it.

I would never dare apply that label to another poster. Should you choose to voluntarily apply it to yourself then that is your right to do so.
If you really think about it you are confusing the facts of criminal liability and civil liability, which I have attempted to explain. I have attempted to explain that the facts of the matter have been reviewed on multiple occasions, and that in all cases the officers involved were acquitted of criminal liability. Could they be liable for civil damages? I think that there is a good likelihood of that based on the facts that we have both outlined and the different standards of proof.

If the facts change and new evidence comes to light that implicates the officers involved I will gladly review my opinions based on those facts.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, is this debate about legal culpability alone? It seems like some people are arguing the police did nothing wrong full stop, as opposed to "they committed no provable crime". Can we agree that the police officers bear some moral responsibility for Freddie's death via negligence or indifference?

I guess it depends on if you believe the evidence indicating Gray had previously self injured and may have been doing it again or not. I have certainly seen dumb criminals do dumb things that end up far worse than they anticipated. OTOH, if officers acted with negligence or reckless indifference, that needs to be dealt with in a way that sends a clear message that such behavior is completely unacceptable. I would anticipate that the civil suits will help resolve some of this, but it lurks pretty murky ATM. And our system presumes criminal innocence and even the civil puts the burden on the party asking for relief....

Inadequate training and implementation of safety policies is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed.

Justice Dept report is out for Baltimore...

Ain't pretty...

That's a pretty amazing / shameful read.

How institutionalized and ingrained does something like that really have to be to not even get the slightest feeling of "maybe I should try to hide this behavior from the people investigating us and who are watching me right now"?

 whembly wrote:
Justice Dept report is out for Baltimore...

Ain't pretty...

Bloody hell, this reads like a bad blaxploitation synopsis.

 Ouze wrote:
That's a pretty amazing / shameful read.

Yes.

Interesting but look which media source wrote the article. The Huffpost could make the cub scouts look like terrorists if it fit their agenda. Not saying these guys are innocent but it has to be looked at objectively.

Some of the info used as examples were poor choices to use in an article. Like the one where some random person claims the cop called him bad names, if it were true or he was really concerned about it, the person would have shown up and given an official statement which he did not.

The crime percentage thing as well is distorting the truth. Its a pretty well known fact that minorities commit a higher proportion of violent crime in the US than their population would indicate for various reasons both cultural and economic. I don't want to hear any BS about racism, that's subjective and emotional but not based in fact. That this city's population is the vast majority therefore using national statistics, it is a pretty safe bet that they commit as high a percentage of crime as the article claims.

As to the mentalities of the cops listed in the article, out of how many thousand cops they could have simply talked to the several hard core guys that believe this. We all know reporters love to talk to the people who look and talk like whack jobs. The DoJ under the instructions of the AG very well might have been looking for these same people for the same reasons, the current justice admin is not the most impartial justice admin we have had and I can easily see the appointees having an agenda.

While I doubt things are as bad as Huffpo makes things out to appear, there is obviously room for improvement. How you get that improvement without losing the experience of veterans and still keeping the streets somewhat safe is above my pay grade.

Well, unfortunately HuffPo is unable to force people to actually read the entire Report. And when people are able to either believe their "spin", or ignore it because they couldn't possibly cover it objectively, because they are unable to read the report that is posted completely at the bottom of the page and which doesn't even require clicking on a single link or opening up a second tab on your browser then it must really be the fault of HuffPo that the truth will never really be known...

Col. Dash wrote:
Like the one where some random person claims the cop called him bad names, if it were true or he was really concerned about it, the person would have shown up and given an official statement which he did not.e.

If the police call a citizen a racial slur, but the citizen doesn't go into a police station and file a report with the police officers about one of their coworkers, did anything wrong even happen?



This right here is the Michael Phelps level, gold medal for victim blaming. This is what you guys will have to try and top the next time we have to justify some gakky thing a cop did.

Yep. looks like some serious issues. But you can't address problems until you recognize them. Here, the racial slurs seem to be a symptom of a larger division with the community. The "us v. them" mentality is extremely dangerous, and seems to have spread far beyond just a racial issue as Baltimore seems to have a significant minority representation in its police force. People need to realize that these divisions are based on power, which may be tied to race, but not necessarily. People in positions of authority absolutely must be held accountable for their use of that authority.

Hopefully, BPD will utilize this to improve. It is my understanding that they re seeking to increase community involvement, but also are struggling with personnel shortages. A consistent internal discipline strategy coupled with better training might encourage more and better candidates to apply.

Ultimately, it will be up to voters to make sure the city governance addresses these issues.