connieb
Senator
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hung-jury-trial-baltimore-cop-freddie-gray-case-n481296
Of course this will just mean another trial. But, maybe another shot at a change of venue.
Here is my take. First of all - regardless of when he got injured, either in the take down, or in the van, in order to get to some sort of criminal charge you would have to prove that they either did something unusual or wrong. So, that would mean - they used unnecessary force or they didn't belt him in and were required to.
To the first part, that is why the bad arrest was so important to this case. IF it had been a bad arrest, then they could have said anything that happened afterwards was bad as well. The problem is they dropped this charge and accusation early on... why - because the knife was illegal under Balt. City law, and the SCOTUS had previously decided that running from law enforcement officers constituted probable cause for a stop, and during the stop, they had the right, to pat down a suspect for weapons. Once she had to toss this, she should have tossed the case, but she didn't.
Moving on, with regards to excessive force. The video does not show any excessive force. They were using proper holds and techniques. YES they are uncomfortable. They are designed to be so. Yes they immobilize the suspect, they are designed to do so. The issue of the buckling in is important. BUT - if they can prove that it was reasonable to not, that it was the current practice to not, that there was some other reason from deviating from that procedure that was reasonable, then not belting him in does not get him to a malicious intent to cause him harm. In this case, assuming he was not belted in and that caused the injury, the policy to belt him in, was issued very recently. The Prosecution could not prove that Porter had been made aware of this change in policy. They couldn't prove therefore it was outside the standard of care. Furthermore, it was the van driver's responsibility to secure the passenger, not Porter's. So, they can't get to either complete recklessness which is a wanton disregard for his safty or any malicious intent, because they did not intentionally on any of the video's rough him up, intentionally be mean to him or mistreat him, and they can't prove they knew of the policythey supposedly violated, and it wasn't even Porter's job - therefore no legal duty - to be the caretaker and belt him in. So, now they can't prove any sort of intent.
In so far as not calling for medical. They can't get there as a cause of his injuries. There was testimony that no matter when the abulance had been called when Porter was involved, it would not have made a difference with regards to his survival. Furthermore, they can not point to a procedure which indicates call medical for all cases all the time. Why? Becuase every criminal would be taking an abulance ride on every arrest. So, its left up to the judgement and when you leave something up to the judgement of someone else, then quite honestly you have to accept they have the chance to make amistake.
In this case I think it was the perfect storm of circumstances that lead to his death. But, it does not rise to criminal culpability unless someone INTENTIONALLY did something to harm him or drove recklessly, etc. Thankfully, at least one Juror, was more worried about following the letter of the law, than appeasing the unwashed masses.
Of course this will just mean another trial. But, maybe another shot at a change of venue.
Here is my take. First of all - regardless of when he got injured, either in the take down, or in the van, in order to get to some sort of criminal charge you would have to prove that they either did something unusual or wrong. So, that would mean - they used unnecessary force or they didn't belt him in and were required to.
To the first part, that is why the bad arrest was so important to this case. IF it had been a bad arrest, then they could have said anything that happened afterwards was bad as well. The problem is they dropped this charge and accusation early on... why - because the knife was illegal under Balt. City law, and the SCOTUS had previously decided that running from law enforcement officers constituted probable cause for a stop, and during the stop, they had the right, to pat down a suspect for weapons. Once she had to toss this, she should have tossed the case, but she didn't.
Moving on, with regards to excessive force. The video does not show any excessive force. They were using proper holds and techniques. YES they are uncomfortable. They are designed to be so. Yes they immobilize the suspect, they are designed to do so. The issue of the buckling in is important. BUT - if they can prove that it was reasonable to not, that it was the current practice to not, that there was some other reason from deviating from that procedure that was reasonable, then not belting him in does not get him to a malicious intent to cause him harm. In this case, assuming he was not belted in and that caused the injury, the policy to belt him in, was issued very recently. The Prosecution could not prove that Porter had been made aware of this change in policy. They couldn't prove therefore it was outside the standard of care. Furthermore, it was the van driver's responsibility to secure the passenger, not Porter's. So, they can't get to either complete recklessness which is a wanton disregard for his safty or any malicious intent, because they did not intentionally on any of the video's rough him up, intentionally be mean to him or mistreat him, and they can't prove they knew of the policythey supposedly violated, and it wasn't even Porter's job - therefore no legal duty - to be the caretaker and belt him in. So, now they can't prove any sort of intent.
In so far as not calling for medical. They can't get there as a cause of his injuries. There was testimony that no matter when the abulance had been called when Porter was involved, it would not have made a difference with regards to his survival. Furthermore, they can not point to a procedure which indicates call medical for all cases all the time. Why? Becuase every criminal would be taking an abulance ride on every arrest. So, its left up to the judgement and when you leave something up to the judgement of someone else, then quite honestly you have to accept they have the chance to make amistake.
In this case I think it was the perfect storm of circumstances that lead to his death. But, it does not rise to criminal culpability unless someone INTENTIONALLY did something to harm him or drove recklessly, etc. Thankfully, at least one Juror, was more worried about following the letter of the law, than appeasing the unwashed masses.
