# Officer Nero Not Guilty On All Charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505 "2016-05-24T00:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/81 "2016-07-20T22:35:51Z")
Thanks, all and **Bricker**. Is there really no evidence that the police officers did not intend to injure the deceased? Or simply no evidence of that sort has been presented at the trials because it’s not pertinent to the charges being tried? Or there is evidence, but it’s not strong enough to base charges on it? Does there need to be a change in the law? It feels wrong to me that if fault is diffused among enough people that everyone avoids conviction. Is it simply an inherent implication of our “beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial system that makes it impossible to do better? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/82 "2016-07-20T22:46:33Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Thanks, all and **Bricker**. > > Is there really no evidence that the police officers did not intend to injure the deceased? Or simply no evidence of that sort has been presented at the trials because it’s not pertinent to the charges being tried? Or there is evidence, but it’s not strong enough to base charges on it? > > Does there need to be a change in the law? It feels wrong to me that if fault is diffused among enough people that everyone avoids conviction. Is it simply an inherent implication of our “beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial system that makes it impossible to do better? The only evidence that they intended to injure Gray was that they did not put him in a seatbelt. However, since literally billions of people have driven in cars unbelted and not been killed it is impossible to charge based on that alone. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/83 "2016-07-21T03:15:10Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The only evidence that they intended to injure Gray was that they did not put him in a seatbelt. However, since literally billions of people have driven in cars unbelted and not been killed it is impossible to charge based on that alone. And they have the other person in transport who didn’t suffer any injuries so it doesn’t demonstrate any attempt at a “rough ride”. If police are to transport people with the understanding that they may try to harm themselves then they will have to hog tie or straight jacket them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/84 "2016-07-21T03:52:16Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Thanks, all and **Bricker**. > > Is there really no evidence that the police officers did not intend to injure the deceased? Or simply no evidence of that sort has been presented at the trials because it’s not pertinent to the charges being tried? Or there is evidence, but it’s not strong enough to base charges on it? There is no evidence of intent to injure. The best shot the State had was proving reckless endangerment: that the officer engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to Gray, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in that conduct, and that the officer acted recklessly. The problem with this theory was that while there was a general order requiring seatbelts be used for prisoners, it was new, and the State failed to present any evidence that it had been communicated to the officer. > [@](#): > > Does there need to be a change in the law? It feels wrong to me that if fault is diffused among enough people that everyone avoids conviction. Is it simply an inherent implication of our “beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial system that makes it impossible to do better? The problem was not “diffusing” fault. The problem is that there was no proof of any criminal act. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/85 "2016-07-21T13:40:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem was not “diffusing” fault. The problem is that there was no proof of any criminal act. Yes, I see that there were no criminal acts under the current law, but you’re not addressing my question. I’m asking if it’s possible to constitutionally write a law that would’ve criminalized the actions of the officers in this situation. Edited to add: For example, would “police officers are strictly liable for injuries to those in their custody” pass constitutional muster. I’m not asking if it’s good public policy, but if it’s constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/86 "2016-07-21T16:09:31Z")
Of course a law could be passed that would impose that sort of liability. I would bet dollars to donuts that would never come to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/87 "2016-07-21T16:59:21Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Yes, I see that there were no criminal acts under the current law, but you’re not addressing my question. I’m asking if it’s possible to constitutionally write a law that would’ve criminalized the actions of the officers in this situation. > > Edited to add: > For example, would “police officers are strictly liable for injuries to those in their custody” pass constitutional muster. I’m not asking if it’s good public policy, but if it’s constitutional. It probably would. As a general rule, the courts are loathe to accept strict liability criminal offenses, and often judicially create scienter elements to crimes when none are specified. But in this case, my best guess is that such a law would be constitutionally permissible, as long as it did not destroy the extant privilege that officers have to inflict reasonable injury while using reasonable force. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/88 "2016-07-21T17:11:53Z")
I don’t think strict liability for injuries in custody is a constitutional criminal prohibition. Due process requires that you have the ability to ensure that your conduct is not criminal. Since some detainees will be injured even if officers are perfect angels, such a criminal prohibition would not pass muster. However, I do not think there’s any constitutional obstacle to stripping officers of their privilege to use reasonable force. Statutes can abrogate common law privileges. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/89 "2016-07-21T17:29:29Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The only evidence that they intended to injure Gray was that they did not put him in a seatbelt. However, since literally billions of people have driven in cars unbelted and not been killed it is impossible to charge based on that alone. Parents can face criminal neglect charges for failing to buckle up children in their charge. Here the police have a citizen in their charge, whom they have rendered especially vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/90 "2016-07-21T17:35:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no evidence of intent to injure. > > The best shot the State had was proving reckless endangerment: that the officer engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to Gray, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in that conduct, and that the officer acted recklessly. > > The problem with this theory was that while there was a general order requiring seatbelts be used for prisoners, it was new, and the State failed to present any evidence that it had been communicated to the officer. It is pathetic and shameful that the police hide behind a purported need for a policy on this point. A _reasonable_ person knows that there is risk in transporting anyone in a motor vehicle unbelted. The standard for police officers’ judgement ought to be _higher_ than that for ordinary citizens’. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/91 "2016-07-21T19:03:00Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > It is pathetic and shameful that the police hide behind a purported need for a policy on this point. A _reasonable_ person knows that there is risk in transporting anyone in a motor vehicle unbelted. So what? The bar for criminal recklessness is not simply “there is risk.” Sure, a reasonable person knows there is risk. But conduct that is criminally reckless requires that the actor know there is a “high degree” of risk to human life and a reckless disregard for human life. The act of transporting a person unbelted does not meet that standard. > [@](#): > > The standard for police officers’ judgement ought to be _higher_ than that for ordinary citizens’. Write your legislator. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/92 "2016-07-21T19:10:56Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Parents can face criminal neglect charges for failing to buckle up children in their charge. Here the police have a citizen in their charge, whom they have rendered especially vulnerable. As I read Md Code § 22-412.2 the penalty is a $50 fine, not any kind of criminal neglect charge. Can you explain what you’re thinking of when you say they can face criminal neglect charges? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/93 "2016-07-21T19:17:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And they have the other person in transport who didn’t suffer any injuries so it doesn’t demonstrate any attempt at a “rough ride”. > > {…} During the time period that “the other person” was in the vehicle. “The other person” can not tell us ANYTHING about the time period between Gray being placed in the vehicle and driven toward the central booking station and the time “the other person” was placed in the vehicle, can he? There is a time period where the only people in the van were Gray and Goodson, correct? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/94 "2016-07-21T19:55:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I read Md Code § 22-412.2 the penalty is a $50 fine, not any kind of criminal neglect charge. Can you explain what you’re thinking of when you say they can face criminal neglect charges? I’m not Peremensoe, but if a child is not buckled in and dies as a result, the worst that happens (legally) to the adults in charge of the child is a $50 fine? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/95 "2016-07-21T20:02:02Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I’m not Peremensoe, but if a child is not buckled in and dies as a result, the worst that happens (legally) to the adults in charge of the child is a $50 fine? If they are guilty of killing the kid because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they are guilty of driving in much a manner as crash and kill the kid. I can’t see punishing someone over the death of their child. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/96 "2016-07-21T20:52:17Z")
Thanks again for the replies. I don’t think strict liability for police officers is the best solution, but it’s good to know that it’s within the gamut of constitutional possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/97 "2016-07-21T21:14:10Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I’m not Peremensoe, but if a child is not buckled in and dies as a result, the worst that happens (legally) to the adults in charge of the child is a $50 fine? Well, if the accident that caused the death was the fault of those same adults, then of course there is the possibility of criminal charges arising from that accident. In other words, if the parent drove drunk and the child were killed, there might well be criminal liability. But § 22-412.2(h) provides: > [@](#): > > Effect of violations. – A violation of this section is not contributory negligence and may not be admitted as evidence in the trial of any civil action. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/98 "2016-07-21T21:32:01Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In our “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” legal system, it’s entirely possible that people could be the cause of something terrible, like the death of someone, and the state may lack enough evidence to convict. It’s an acceptable outcome to me. It’s also entirely possible that no one person is responsible, at least not in a criminal justice sense. IMO, there’s a very high likelihood that in this case, it was some sort of bizarre conjunction of sub-criminal negligence or incompetence on the part of a whole bunch of people, potentially causing Gray’s death. None of which are enough to convict anyone on, and none of which would have been an issue absent ALL the others. Just because something’s unfortunate and people want someone to hang, doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/99 "2016-07-21T21:46:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I read Md Code § 22-412.2 the penalty is a $50 fine, not any kind of criminal neglect charge. Can you explain what you’re thinking of when you say they can face criminal neglect charges? Several states have much more severe penalties for failure to properly secure child passengers, or else explicitly consider that such an act qualifies under their broader child-neglect statutes. See [this case](http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-04-20/news/fl-boynton-child-neglect-follow-20120420_1_child-neglect-car-seat-safe-kids) in Florida, for example (in which there was no accident and no injuries); there were other indicia of neglect, but the failure to secure child passengers is cited as the basis for prosecution. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > If they are guilty of killing the kid because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt, they are guilty of driving in much a manner as crash and kill the kid. Well, sometimes. Other times they were hit by somebody else driving badly, and their only failure of duty was in not-securing the kid. As in [this case](http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=126903&page=1) in Tennessee, where the kid died and the mother was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505/100 "2016-07-21T23:26:47Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Several states have much more severe penalties for failure to properly secure child passengers, or else explicitly consider that such an act qualifies under their broader child-neglect statutes. See [this case](http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-04-20/news/fl-boynton-child-neglect-follow-20120420_1_child-neglect-car-seat-safe-kids) in Florida, for example (in which there was no accident and no injuries); there were other indicia of neglect, but the failure to secure child passengers is cited as the basis for prosecution. It seems to have been cited as the basis for arrest, to be sure. But I can’t find a case that was ever prosecuted on that basis. Florida’s child neglect law is not the same as Maryland’s. But even in Florida, the child neglect law in play, Fl. Stat. 827.03(2)(d) provides: > [@](#): > > A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree… I cannot find a single instance of a criminal trial, let alone a conviction, for a seat belt violation for a child. The Florida model jury instructions provide: > [@](#): > > Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. \*\* But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others\*\*. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. > > The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. **Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.** There is no way that the mere fact of failing to belt a child in, without more, would sustain a conviction under this section, and I can find not one instance where it has. Your citation is to a case in Florida, not Maryland, that involved an arrest, not a conviction. The case discussed in this thread also involves an arrest of the Baltimore officers, but not a conviction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/officer-nero-not-guilty-on-all-charges/755505.md?page=6)