Which actions did Mr. Gray take that put his live in danger? I mean, if you can make that argument, then I can simply turn it around and make the same argument.....If the police had simply rendered/ called for medical attention, Mr. Gray would most likely still be alive and 6 police wouldn't be facing some pretty serious charges.
While you have the ability to make such a argument, it is not one supported by the known evidence.
The Officers rendered assistance when they knew he needed it.
To your initial question.
The evidence is
it was a smooth ride.
still that he was banging his head.
that he was okay but was creating a ruckus so they then shackled his legs and left him laying facing forward.
He of his own volition turned himself around and got up, his head rammed against a bolt at the rear and then falling causing damage to his voice box.
The fact that it was a smooth ride pretty much is an indication that his purposely banging his head is the proximate cause of his injury.
Actually contributing to the death of a person via carelessness, either by accident or intentional is, in fact, against the law.
It may be found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy.
The supposed new rules are no where to be found.
Do you have a link to them?
Here are the only ones (old) I could find.
-- Ensure medical treatment for a prisoner is obtained, when necessary, at the nearest emergency medical facility
>The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/ba...-transport.pdf
To suggest an act of not restraining him for purpose of Officer safety somehow raises to the level of irresponsibility or negligence in his death when it was okay to do so supposedly just three days prior, is absurd.
Yes a drug deal suspiciously short of drugs....hmmmmm
D'oh! Both suspects fled.
Tell me you are not going to pretend that that is an indication that they were up to no good.
Not finding what they exchanged does not mean that it was not seen.
Besides the possibility of it being tossed, for all you know it was ingested.
Again, the criminal part isn't that they violated policy, it's that someone allegedly has died for failure to implement the policy.
It does not raise to the level of of criminal culpability.
Especially as it wasn't policy three days earlier.
If it is found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy, the old standards will be what was in effect.