• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freddie Gray autopsy report leaked. Says he fell when the van stopped.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064749545 said:
Grey was not seat belted in, which is department policy. The police are responsible for anyone in their custody. He died from a violent impact described as similar to a neck injury from diving in shallow water while in police custody.

So just let it go with "oops, my bad"?
Click to expand...

Trust me, the taxpayers will pay the relatives a fortune to make this go away. But the 6 accused officers will skate. Which is what liberals want anyway since 3 of them are black.
 
faithful_servant said:
They still have to prove that the van did violently decelerate. Without proof of that, they have no case. There's no doubt that he should have been strapped in, but that doesn't equate to killing him any more than pointing a gun at someone is homicide. There has to be proof that the BPD intentionally carried out an action that they knew could put him at risk of death or injury. Gray also has a measure of responsibility in this as well. If you're in the back of a van, with your hands and feet shackled, you sit your ass down. It does relieve the BPD of their part int his by failing to strap him in, but when you do something that dumb, IMO, you lose a lot of legal protection. It's kind of like suing a company because you cut your lip while drink from a can that you cut a hole in with a knife when the can had perfectly good hole to drink out of.
Click to expand...

Not only that... I would imagine that they would have to prove that the van did "violently decelerate" with the intent to cause harm to the subjects inside rather than to avoid a sudden road hazard.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064748291 said:
So this is what happened? Looks like Freddy's family is going to be rich and some police officers are going to jail.
Click to expand...
:doh
iLOL Is that the way it looks to you?
It actually looks quite different to a rational thinker.


Μολὼν λαβέ;1064748476 said:
If the ride was not rough then how did Freddy get an 80% severed neck while in police custody?
Click to expand...
Instead of laying down as he was left, he continued to yell and bang around the van.


Μολὼν λαβέ;1064748476 said:
To me suddenly decelerated means slamming on the brakes.
Click to expand...
His getting up while handcuffed behind his back and legs shackled would cause him to loose his balance quite easily. His getting up precipitated his falling and suddenly decelerating when his head hit the object it did.


Μολὼν λαβέ;1064748692 said:
Even so if the driver slams on the brakes it means he was driving too fast for conditions, and with an unsecured prisoner in the back who was arrested illegally. I would say the police are f***ed.
Click to expand...
You would be mistaken on three counts counts.

And he was not arrested illegally and please note how it has changed from the knife was legal to an arrest beforehand was illegal.
They had reasonable suspicion to give chase and detain. That detention allowed them to search him.
There was nothing illegal about it.
The idiot prosecutor is grasping.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064749545 said:
Grey was not seat belted in, which is department policy. The police are responsible for anyone in their custody. He died from a violent impact described as similar to a neck injury from diving in shallow water while in police custody.

So just let it go with "oops, my bad"?
Click to expand...

See the following post.

Excon said:
Pdf of new Policy.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2077055/baltimore-city-policy.pdf



While previous reports say this new policy was published April 3, 2015, ABC2 has learned it wasn't approved and emailed out to officers until almost a week later.

In Focus has obtained the department wide e-mail confirming as much with the time stamp of 6:01 p.m. on April 9, just two full days before Freddie Gray would be arrested in the western district.

Baltimore Police issued new seat belt order days before Freddie Gray's death - ABC2News.com​


As I previously mentioned in another thread, if there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the new policy, the previous policy was still in operation until it was effectively replaced.

Two full days by email doesn't seem like an affective notification, especially as grounds for criminal action.

~~~~

So we have the information of a notification by email two full days prior to the incident.
Funny thing here is that there is no mention or claim of it being disseminated at roll-call. I wonder why that is?


Now we have the following report.


That order is No. 1114 and it is also clear.

[...]

But what may not be clear is whether any of the officers involved knew it existed.

[...]

"Our policies are disseminated now through emails. That is the easiest, fastest and quickest way, use technology to get them out. We also have them in paper form. We also send them out to sergeants, lieutenants at roll call to go over them and explain and answer any questions that we may have."

Baltimore Police say commanders then typically read new orders at roll call for three to five days.
ABC2 news obtained a copy of the email to commanders as well.

According to the time stamp, it was sent out the morning of April 14, two days after Gray was hospitalized and reads in part, “Per policy 1114…please ensure that all prisoners are properly secured…”

It goes on, “…please ensure this is read at roll call for five consecutive days.”

Did Baltimore police officers charged with Freddie Gray's death know about new seat belt policy? - ABC2News.com​
Click to expand...
 
BrewerBob said:
The other prisoner, Donta Allen, said the police report did not accurately portray his comments.
Click to expand...
If this goes to a jury they are not likely to believe his changed story, especially as the original story is usually the most accurate, and the fact that he stated he was saying what he now has to protect himself, so his change has no credibility.


BrewerBob said:
But that guy didn't get on until the third stop so he wouldn't know what kind of ride Gray had been receiving.
Click to expand...
And the likelihood that he received anything different is slim to none.
There has only been 7 complaints since 1997. That is like one complained of incident just over every 2[SUP]½[/SUP] years.
Again, unlikely.


BrewerBob said:
And when they arrived at the prisoner intake Allen states he heard a female officer say "Well, you know, we gave him a run for his money -- he's not breathing."
Click to expand...
1. "Run", not ride.
2. Unlikely as she wasn't involved in either.
3. If he didn't initially say this to the investigator, it lacks credibility as his changed story does.


BrewerBob said:
I don't know whether he is telling the truth but I doubt the defense is going to want to introduce anything this guy said because that will just open the door to rest of the stuff he said.
Click to expand...
This is not a problem for any defense.
He is already on record stating why he changed his story. He had incentive to lie, thus the change.
The jury will be informed that the first statements given are usually the most truthful.
This really is not problem if there is a trial.




Henry David said:
"most likely caused" and "surmised" make it sound like speculation. If he was injured inside the van, why were his feet dragging on the way to the van?
Click to expand...
It was speculation on her part.
It is also odd that it is the assistant making the examination instead of the actual ME.

Legs ~ He showed his legs worked and were under his control when he stood on his own on the bumper and then ducked to get into the back of the van.

While bystanders captured his arrest on video showing Gray moaning for help, the autopsy concluded that he suffered no injuries suggesting a neck hold or stemming from physical restraint. Allan noted that Gray could be seen bearing weight on his legs and speaking as he was loaded into the van.

Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' blow - Baltimore Sun​
 
Excon said:
While bystanders captured his arrest on video showing Gray moaning for help, the autopsy concluded that he suffered no injuries suggesting a neck hold or stemming from physical restraint. Allan noted that Gray could be seen bearing weight on his legs and speaking as he was loaded into the van.

Autopsy of Freddie Gray shows 'high-energy' blow - Baltimore Sun​
Click to expand...

Gray was putting on an act. It's like an industry in baltimore. Act like the cops beat you up and the city will give you $50 thou just to go away.
 
Caine said:
Oh... you mean that debate which you refuse to see the other side of... You know.... the one where he wasn't arrested under Maryland law but under Baltimore City Ordinance.....

Besides.... with Mrs. "Ima go sit on stage with Prince and Pose for Vogue Magazine" I can see how she would ignore any evidence to the officer's innocence as long as she gets to trump herself up in popular media.
Click to expand...

What I see is evidence in the death of Freddie Gray.
 
Caine said:
Not only that... I would imagine that they would have to prove that the van did "violently decelerate" with the intent to cause harm to the subjects inside rather than to avoid a sudden road hazard.
Click to expand...

A sudden road hazard, or even an accident, will not cover for not strapping a handcuffed individual securely in the vehicle. I got cut off by a Police van on my way home yesterday. I laughed at the sign on the back that stated "Stay back 25 feet". I was cutoff with 3 inches to spare, so that's how far back I stayed.

It was radical driving by those above the law. Nothing to see here.
 
TextDriversKill said:
Gray was putting on an act. It's like an industry in baltimore. Act like the cops beat you up and the city will give you $50 thou just to go away.
Click to expand...

I guess he took his acting too far when his head almost came off. This reminds me of Mr. Byrd.
 
d0gbreath said:
A sudden road hazard, or even an accident, will not cover for not strapping a handcuffed individual securely in the vehicle. I got cut off by a Police van on my way home yesterday. I laughed at the sign on the back that stated "Stay back 25 feet". I was cutoff with 3 inches to spare, so that's how far back I stayed.

It was radical driving by those above the law. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

And I ****ed a space alien..... what you don't believe me?
 
TextDriversKill said:
Gray was putting on an act. It's like an industry in baltimore. Act like the cops beat you up and the city will give you $50 thou just to go away.
Click to expand...
Gray may have been.

If he was, it would explain why he first ran into the safety of a building only to reemerge to engage the police and then his buddy showed up to film it.
 
Caine said:
And I ****ed a space alien..... what you don't believe me?
Click to expand...

I do not lie, cheat, nor steal. Since you are a Policeman, you are trained to do all three on a regular basis. Sucks to be you. But try to remember that everyone doesn't act like you do. Try hanging out with some good people for a change. Integrity, you might actually like it.
 
Fenton said:
The other prisoner in the back of the van claimed that it was not a " rough ride ".
Click to expand...

Rough? What about a sudden deceleration? Like putting on the brakes?
 
TextDriversKill said:
The driver will say a kid ran in my path. It the van has dash cam, he'll have to modify that to something like "I heard a real loud noise and hit the brakes". Who's to say otherwise?
Click to expand...

perjury is a felony if you don't forget.

these cops are in a bad state of business a prisoner died while in their care because they either didn't follow procedure or they were purposely negligent.
I usually take the side of a cop when things are up in their air however in this case there is little up in the air.

even if he did slam on the brakes or stop for some reason the person in the back was still not properly restrained or belted in to prevent injury or death.
which means the driver is still accountable and the rest of the officers for not securing him in properly.
 
Caine said:
Not only that... I would imagine that they would have to prove that the van did "violently decelerate" with the intent to cause harm to the subjects inside rather than to avoid a sudden road hazard.
Click to expand...

the autopsy pretty much proves what happened. the corner pretty much put a death nail in the defenses case by ruling it a homicide.
those police officers are responsible for the health and well being of the people they arrest.

this guy was killed in their van due to his head slamming into the wall at great force. only that which could be caused by negligent driving.
 
ludin said:
the autopsy pretty much proves what happened. the corner pretty much put a death nail in the defenses case by ruling it a homicide.
those police officers are responsible for the health and well being of the people they arrest.

this guy was killed in their van due to his head slamming into the wall at great force. only that which could be caused by negligent driving.
Click to expand...
Nothing you said is logical.

ludin said:
the autopsy pretty much proves what happened.
Click to expand...
The autopsy proves an injury happened. Not how it happened.


ludin said:
the corner pretty much put a death nail in the defenses case by ruling it a homicide.
Click to expand...
:doh
No it doesn't. Homicide does not mean a criminal act occurred.
Nor does such a ruling mean that a jury would accept the designation.


ludin said:
those police officers are responsible for the health and well being of the people they arrest.
Click to expand...
Not always for acts that incurred by accident and those cause by the individual their self.


ludin said:
this guy was killed in their van due to his head slamming into the wall at great force. only that which could be caused by negligent driving.
Click to expand...
Simply wrong.
This could have happened during normal driving, not negligent driving, nor do they have any such evidence that we know of to even suggest negligent driving.
But we do have evidence that Gray, on his own volition, was moving around in the back, banging around and causing the van to rock.
He very well could have lost his balance because of his choice to bang around and rock the van, and simply fell slamming his head.
 
ludin said:
the autopsy pretty much proves what happened. the corner pretty much put a death nail in the defenses case by ruling it a homicide.
those police officers are responsible for the health and well being of the people they arrest.

this guy was killed in their van due to his head slamming into the wall at great force. only that which could be caused by negligent driving.
Click to expand...

An Autopsy doesn't prove that the van did anything. It proves that the BODY did something. Whether the cause twas the van, or twas the human controlling the body is undetermined. He ruled it a homicide for obvious reasons. How can you say something was "accidental" but then rule it a homicide anyways?
How can a head slaming into a wall at great force ONLY be caused by negligent driving... and not from the guy standing up and slamming his own head into the wall....
Think Im kidding? I can't recall the amount of times I had to rip-hobble and very tightly seat belt people in the back of a patrol car while cuffed behind their back for such activities.

Im not say "THIS IS WHAT HE DID". Im saying that your narrow minded view of the subject is telling of your motivations and bias in this case.
 
Caine said:
An Autopsy doesn't prove that the van did anything. It proves that the BODY did something. Whether the cause twas the van, or twas the human controlling the body is undetermined. He ruled it a homicide for obvious reasons. How can you say something was "accidental" but then rule it a homicide anyways?
How can a head slaming into a wall at great force ONLY be caused by negligent driving... and not from the guy standing up and slamming his own head into the wall....
Think Im kidding? I can't recall the amount of times I had to rip-hobble and very tightly seat belt people in the back of a patrol car while cuffed behind their back for such activities.

Im not say "THIS IS WHAT HE DID". Im saying that your narrow minded view of the subject is telling of your motivations and bias in this case.
Click to expand...

even if he did it to himself the police were still negligent in securing him.
if he was able to stand up and do it to himself he was not properly secured and they were negligent.

if he was properly secured like they say he was then the only other thing that can do that type of damage is negligent driving.
since there is a past history of complaints with this police department for this very thing then one has to looking that it is very big possibility.

they just went to far this time and someone died.
 
ludin said:
even if he did it to himself the police were still negligent in securing him.
if he was able to stand up and do it to himself he was not properly secured and they were negligent.
Click to expand...
No.
1. Just a few days earlier there was an exception for Officer safety. If they were not properly informed of the change there was no negligence. And all this incident has shown is that there should be an exception for Officer safety.
2. Then we have his contribution to the accident. He should have stayed laying down as he was placed instead of banging around and causing the van to rock.
3. And not securing does not equate to a criminal charge.


ludin said:
if he was properly secured like they say he was
Click to expand...
Who said what?

As already pointed out, you are wrong. It could have happened all by his own actions.


ludin said:
then the only other thing that can do that type of damage is negligent driving.
Click to expand...
As already pointed out, you are wrong. It could have happened all by his own actions.

ludin said:
since there is a past history of complaints with this police department for this very thing then one has to looking that it is very big possibility.
Click to expand...
Seven (7) complaints since 1997 doesn't add up to a "very big possibility".

ludin said:
they just went to far this time and someone died.
Click to expand...
:doh
There is no evidence that anybody went too far.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
even if he did it to himself the police were still negligent in securing him.
if he was able to stand up and do it to himself he was not properly secured and they were negligent.

if he was properly secured like they say he was then the only other thing that can do that type of damage is negligent driving.
since there is a past history of complaints with this police department for this very thing then one has to looking that it is very big possibility.

they just went to far this time and someone died.
Click to expand...

"They" went too far? Who is "they" and how far did they go... EXACTLY.
And what evidence against THESE SPECIFIC OFFICERS is there?

You'll find when this case goes to court that the rules are quite different than what it takes to make assumptions as they do in the media based on nothing more than biased opinions. If the only evidence is that the transport driver failed to properly secure the driver and did not give him medical attention when requested.... then by all means charge the individual involved if that is what you can prove with negligence. It won't amount to murder by any stretch of the imagination....

Trying to prove he drove in a manner to deliberately cause death is going to be a hard thing to prove.
 
d0gbreath said:
or even an accident, will not cover for not strapping a handcuffed individual securely in the vehicle.
Click to expand...
In another State, case law says you are wrong.


d0gbreath said:
I guess he took his acting too far when his head almost came off.
Click to expand...
Oh look. You are wrong again.
You should really read the report.
 
Excon said:
In another State, case law says you are wrong.


Oh look. You are wrong again.
You should really read the report.
Click to expand...

Freddy Gray's death has been ruled as a homicide. That is from the report.
 
d0gbreath said:
Freddy Gray's death has been ruled as a homicide. That is from the report.
Click to expand...
And?
1. That doesn't refute anything I have said.
2. Homicide doesn't mean criminal. Or didn't you know that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom