Autopsy finds Freddie Gray suffered 'high-energy injury' in Baltimore police van: report

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: pilgrimOmega
Sounds like they gave Freddie the 'nickel ride', hanging turns, jackrabbit starts and slamming on the brakes.
Many suspected that was what killed him, now the autopsy results seem to agree.

Except for the fact that there were two other prisoners in the van with him who indicated nothing of the sort.

Except the ONE prisoner was picked up on the last stop. There are now 4 documented stops

Baltimore cops finished their probe into the death of a black man who died in police custody and gave their findings to prosecutors on Thursday ​— as new evidence emerged showing that the police van he was in made a previously unreported ​fourth ​stop while bringing him to the precinct.

The state’s attorney’s office will review the information along with the results of its own probe, and then decide whether to seek criminal charges against any of the six cops who were suspended following the April 19 death of Freddie Gray.

The 25-year-old was busted a week earlier after he ran from cops, and mysteriously suffered severe spinal injuries while in custody.

*SNIP*

Gray was arrested after he made eye contact with officers and ran. After a foot chase, officers pinned him down, cuffed him and loaded him into a van.

Last week, Davis said there were three stops — one to put leg irons on Gray, the second “to deal with Mr. Gray” for an unexplained reason and the third to pick up another prisoner.

The new stop “was discovered from a privately owned camera,” Davis said, and came between the first and second stops. He did not elaborate.

nypost.com...

edit on 25-6-2015 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Greathouse
From my understanding that policy was a few days old.

If the police commissioner instructs the use of vans that do not confirm to policy that may be why he was asked to resign.

Odds are that the police were instructed to use the van with no seatbelts by the very same officials who made up the policy about seatbelts.

The state would be at fault for not providing proper vans to conform to the current policy. The police officers do not provide their own vans.

Policy is not law.

In a civil case improper vans could very well be what wins for the plantiff. But such a civil case would be brought against the state and not the officers personally.

a reply to: alphastrike101

From my understanding that policy was a few days old. 

Nine days.

A big problem was that several stops were made and no assistance was rendered to Gray. Even when they arrived at the precinct for booking, Gray was left lying in the van while Allen was booked... even though Gray was not breathing at that point.

He went into the van with an intact spinal column.
He came out of the van with a broken neck. The type of fracture that he had is one seen when a person is struck on top of the head.
The type of injury that he had has happened repeatedly to people that were being transported in police vans. Baltimore had it happen to another man before Gray.
Dondi Johnson, Sr was a paraplegic until he died two weeks later and his family won 7.4 Million dollars in a lawsuit after his nickel ride.
Baltimore Sun

So if you want to keep on thinking that Mr. Gray did a somersault and landed on his head while handcuffed and shackled, have fun with that.
Not only was he injured because of the cops actions, they left him for an extended period of time without medical attention.

a reply to: alphastrike101

From my understanding that policy was a few days old.

That doesn't matter it was still in effect and they were required to do it .

police commissioner instructs the use of vans that do not confirm to policy that may be why he was asked to resign

Still doesn't matter the police were required to follow policy they were responsible for Mr. Gray safety and they chose not to follow it .

Odds are that the police were instructed to use the van with no seatbelts by the very same officials who made up the policy about seatbelts.

That is pure speculation and not applicable .

state would be at fault for not providing proper vans to conform to the current policy. The police officers do not provide their own vans.

That I will grant you but it is not applicable in this instance because the police did not follow required procedure .

Policy is not law.

In that statement you are correct. But police department policy is in fact policy and failure for police officers to follow policy results in misconduct charges . Which is exactly what they are charged with . Furthermore Negligence which falls under misconduct makes any misconduct unlawful and chargeable .

a reply to: butcherguy

The medical expert gave a few possibilities of how such an injury can occur.

None of such included a somersault.

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: butcherguy

The medical expert gave a few possibilities of how such an injury can occur.

None of such included a somersault.

Wait for the trial. You will find that the injury that he had is caused by an impact to the top of the head.

We shall see.

a reply to: Greathouse

Someone ordered them to use the van.

Someone was ordered to drive the van.

Someone was ordered to go to two locations to use the van as prisoner transport.

Police do not just do things. They are assigned particular jobs. Someone was giving orders that likely violated policy.

It was a fairly new policy that may not have been communicated correctly and/or was not correctly implemented correctly to the current equipment.

Criminal negligence and policy negligence are two different things.

For example policy can be no personal effects in or on your work space.

For criminal negligence you would have to show that they went in contrast from orders. The law takes into account a person's knowledge, experience, and perceptions in determining whether the individual has acted as a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances. Conduct must be judged in light of a person's actual knowledge and observations.

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: Greathouse

Someone ordered them to use the van.

Someone was ordered to drive the van.

Someone was ordered to go to two locations to use the van as prisoner transport.

Police do not just do things. They are assigned particular jobs. Someone was giving orders that likely violated policy.

It was a fairly new policy that may not have been communicated correctly and/or was not correctly implemented correctly to the current equipment.

Criminal negligence and policy negligence are two different things.

For example policy can be no personal effects in or on your work space.

For criminal negligence you would have to show that they went in contrast from orders. The law takes into account a person's knowledge, experience, and perceptions in determining whether the individual has acted as a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances. Conduct must be judged in light of a person's actual knowledge and observations.

Police have the right to refuse orders if the orders don't fall under policy. By excepting illegal orders they are as guilty as the person who gave them the orders .

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: butcherguy

I am quite sure it did. However that does not show or prove much of anything.

As far as I see it ms mosby has her work cut out for her if she wants any kind of conviction.
There may well be critical evidence that shows these 6 officers broke the law but honestly I do not currently see it.

However a civil case against the city on the van and seatbelt issue looks like it could very well be a slam dunk.

edit on 25-6-2015 by alphastrike101 because: quotes were all frigged up

a reply to: Greathouse

You have a right to refuse unlawful orders.

We have already sorted out that policy is not law.

Once more knowledge, perception and observations are taken into account for criminal negligence.

The officers on the ground were given a van to transport their prep. The van more likely than not did not have seatbelts. The policy was pretty new.

I fail to see how the current evidence leads to conviction.

Now if the driver was told not to use the van and/or officers were told not to use the van for prisoner transport then that is a different story.

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: Greathouse

You have a right to refuse unlawful orders.

We have already sorted out that policy is not law.

Once more knowledge, perception and observations are taken into account for criminal negligence.

The officers on the ground were given a van to transport their prep. The van more likely than not did not have seatbelts. The policy was pretty new.

I fail to see how the current evidence leads to conviction.

Now if the driver was told not to use the van and/or officers were told not to use the van for prisoner transport then that is a different story.

You understand that they may, and in fact likely do, have evidence that they haven't felt the need to run past you for approval, right?

Please consult the definition of Depraved Heart Murder
before offering anymore of your expertise.

a reply to: pilgrimOmega

Sorry if I hurt your feelings bud.

I was careful to use the words "current evidence".

Depraved heart is a charge that was filed on one of the 6 officers, among multiple other charges spread among the 6 officers.

So what do you have to say about it?

a reply to: alphastrike101


potato

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: pilgrimOmega

Sorry if I hurt your feelings bud.

I was careful to use the words "current evidence".

Depraved heart is a charge that was filed on one of the 6 officers, among multiple other charges spread among the 6 officers.

So what do you have to say about it?

I don't know what feelings are, but I do know the character of your posts in this thread is one of distraction in the manner of a subterfuge/disruption professional.

I say that depraved heart of one cannot occur in a group without the tacit support of the others present.