The settlement was already made. From The New York Times, “The family of Freddie Gray . . . reached a $6.4 million settlement with the city”.
Justice prevailed…black bodies in the streets…glurge glurge glurge
Duh, I forgot that happened last year
My issue with this line is where does responsibility land? Who is LEGALLY responsible to see to it that he was belted in?
In other words, if not this officer who was negligent?
Are you asking about criminal negligence?
I don’t think we were ever told what he was arrested for or what happened before somebody’s cell phone showed him being hauled out the door to the police van by 2 cops with something obviously already wrong with him.
TLDR version; a bike patrol was making its rounds, one of the officers made eye contact with Gray, and Gray then proceeded to flee unprovoked. The officers subsequently gave chase and apprehended him. He was charged at the time with carrying an illegal switchblade; whether or not the knife he was in possession of at the time of his arrest was legal or not has been disputed, and will likely never be adjudicated on account of his death.
Thanks for that – but watching the video there is something obviously wrong with him before they put him in the van. Did the cops do that to him or has he just lost his mind?
Could be either, or both. Gray had a long criminal record, mostly for drugs (other than marijuana), and had five active cases against him at the time of his death. He tested positive for opiates and marijuana upon being admitted to the hospital.
Regards,
Shodan
Several points:
-
Just because bad shit happens doesn’t mean that there is someone that needs a finger pointed at them. Sometimes it is not really anyone’s fault.
-
We are talking about a seat belt here, right? I get that in the last 30 or so years not wearing a seat belt is about as fashionable as drinking a beer while driving, but let’s not lose perspective. Would you think that a person should be charged with murder for not buckling a kid in a car seat properly or failing to buckle up an elderly passenger with dementia? Even if he didn’t buckle up Gray and was required to do so, it should be a traffic infraction.
-
The guidelines said that it was in the discretion of the officer whether or not to buckle in a prisoner. If a guy is being combative, I don’t see the need for an officer to risk being spit at, bit, or headbutted while buckling a guy in. It sounds like Gray acted like a dick every time he got arrested (which was many).
In short, just comply with a police officer’s directive. (Not consent, but comply). If something is illegal about the action, talk to a lawyer after posting bond. I’ve seen too many hot heads want to duke it out with police. That never works out.
Years ago here in Colorado, a 7 yo boy died from apparent abuse. The parents were accused and sent to separate trials. In the husbands trial, he accused his wife, and was found not guilty (I don’t remember whether it was judge only or jury) and walked free. In the wife’s trial, she accused her husband, and was found not guilty and also walked free. I felt so sorry for the boy who died, but apparently was not killed by anyone.
All of these police officer trials, like in the Freddie Gray case and very similar. Yes, your honor, Freddie died while he was in my custody, but he was not my responsibility because I was not the arresting officer. So, Freddie died, but no one was at all responsible. Maybe he committed suicide. I am really getting tired of people getting free on technicalities.
Bob
A guy did die. Policemen do get paid to save people, prevent crimes, and be spit at, bitten and head butted.
if, as the other person arrested testified, he thrashed about then he brought about his own death. While not suicide it’s relevant that he was instrumental in his death.
We had a kid kick out the back window of a cruiser and escape onto a bridge and then proceeded to jump to his death. We can either hog tie people under arrest or treat them with dignity. At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions.
This conclusion represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system on your part.
In each case, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. That doesn’t mean that no one killed the child. It means that there were two possible suspects but not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which one killed the child.
Considered that way, how would you like the process to go? Perhaps you imagine that the husband’s trial would conclude, and the judge then simply informs the wife, “Bad news, ma’am. Your husband was acquitted, which means you are the only suspect left. I’ll give you a moment to prepare, and then the bailiff may fire when ready.”
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In each case, the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. That doesn’t mean that no one killed the child. It means that there were two possible suspects but not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which one killed the child.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I know less than nothing about the law or criminal proceedings, so sorry in advance for my inarticulate simple-minded question.
In this, or other similar cases, of people getting separate trials instead of being tried as a unit (really? separate trials for each parent rather than both together over the death of their kid?); is there a reason why, upon not finding either of them guilty enough for a conviction, the two parents could not then both be charged again as one new, whole, “parental entity?” And then be found properly (jointly) guilty of the kid’s death?
I dunno, I just have some vague ideas about hitman/mafia/cartel chains of command, and the difference between going after specific people vs the businesses as a whole during the financial crisis.
Double jeopardy, I think.
Yes, there is a reason. You can’t condemn an innocent person just to ensure you get the guilty one. Unless you have firm evidence that both parents were responsible then you can’t throw them both in prison. That would be the grossest of injustices. As the maxim has it, “Better ten guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer.”
When two or more people are charged with participating in contemporaneous and related acts or occurrences or in a series of acts or occurrences that constitute crimes, the general rule is that they are tried together – that is, one jury hears the case and delivers separate verdicts for each of the accused.
However, this general rule can be overcome by showing that the process would constitute prejudice to one of the defendants. Here’s an example: suppose that one of the two confessed to police. The other denies guilt. Normally, an out-of-court confession is admissible against a dependent even though it’s hearsay, because an exception to the hearsay rule allows the court to accept such an admission of guilt.
But it’s obviously unfair to tell Rhino that Chop-Chop confessed that they both robbed the liquor store, and so Chop-Chop has waived Rhino’s right against self-incrimination. There ways to solve that without severing the trials, necessarily – Chop-Chop’s confession could be redacted to include only him. But if that won’t work, it may be that Rhino’s right to a fair trial outweighs the state’s interest in a single, joint trial.
A business has an independent legal existence and can be convicted of a crimes, to be sure. But a husband and wife do not also form a third legal joint entity. They may be tried together, but each one’s guilt must be established by the finder of fact.
Update:
Lt. Brian Rice not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office.
Was he charged with anything else; that is, was he convicted of anything?
Regards,
Shodan