Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The offering of various scenarios as to how the injuries were sustained in the van do not constitute speculation, regardless of what was claimed in the whack job conspiracy site earlier linked.
When various scenarios of Possibilities are offered, that is speculation.
Not that you care, but one scenario might be mere negligence, another could be with malice, etc..
You're going to find there was a conspiracy ... between Mosby's office and the ME to turn an accidental death into murder.
When various scenarios of Possibilities are offered, that is speculation.
Not that you care, but one scenario might be mere negligence, another could be with malice, etc..
You're going to find there was a conspiracy ... between Mosby's office and the ME to turn an accidental death into murder.
THAT is highly unlikely. Conspiracies are fun to speculate about but very rare in law enforcement, why would an ME put their job on the line to protect Mosby? All we can do is wait and see what a jury does with the case, but I think it's pretty clear that it was homicide by omission
not sure where you are going with that..are you saying he caused his own death? Because that is a real stretch given the findings of the autopsy. If his life depended upon him lying flat on the floor, he should have been secured in that position. Cops have plenty of restraints available to them that they could have used to effect that.
Except that "should have been" does not rise to the level of a crime.
The autopsy indicates that something other than the actions of the officers and the driver contributed significantly to his death. That is going to make the required malice nearly impossible to prove.
THAT is highly unlikely. Conspiracies are fun to speculate about but very rare in law enforcement, why would an ME put their job on the line to protect Mosby? All we can do is wait and see what a jury does with the case, but I think it's pretty clear that it was homicide by omission
(Note: that is the English, not US, version of that concept.)
The incredibly difficult part here is that the entire homicide by omission case rests on the restraint regulation. In order for that to be usable, the prosecution will have to prove that the restraint regulation was read and understood by each of the officers involved. Since the use of restraints was not common practice in the department, using restraints was not the normal standard of care. So, that means you have to rely on a regulatory standard of care and that means that the new restraint regulation had to be promulgated to those specific officers being charged.
Even for murder by omission, you must be aware of that omission and willfully disregard its effects. This autopsy report injects so much doubt into that, that it will be extremely difficult to make that case.
I see a bunch of plea deals in the near future.
(Note: that is the English, not US, version of that concept.)
The incredibly difficult part here is that the entire homicide by omission case rests on the restraint regulation. In order for that to be usable, the prosecution will have to prove that the restraint regulation was read and understood by each of the officers involved. Since the use of restraints was not common practice in the department, using restraints was not the normal standard of care. So, that means you have to rely on a regulatory standard of care and that means that the new restraint regulation had to be promulgated to those specific officers being charged.
Even for murder by omission, you must be aware of that omission and willfully disregard its effects. This autopsy report injects so much doubt into that, that it will be extremely difficult to make that case.
I see a bunch of plea deals in the near future.
Ok, let me explain something to you. I worked in law enforcement for 24 years, much of that time in forensics.Not sure what your expertise is and I don't want to challenge you on your 'conclusions' so I think it's best to just wait until this comes to trial and see how the jury views it.
Ok, let me explain something to you. I worked in law enforcement for 24 years, much of that time in forensics.Not sure what your expertise is and I don't want to challenge you on your 'conclusions' so I think it's best to just wait until this comes to trial and see how the jury views it.
I agree with the bolded. While waiting, you'll have time to find something about U.S. law rather than Australia's.
Ok, let me explain something to you. I worked in law enforcement for 24 years, much of that time in forensics.Not sure what your expertise is and I don't want to challenge you on your 'conclusions' so I think it's best to just wait until this comes to trial and see how the jury views it.
I have not worked as long as you, but I have worked on CALEA and other accreditation processes and understand the impact of regulation propagation on care of duty charges. Personally, I think it is a departmental failure that regulations are propagated through an envelope full of new regulations passed around the various units with no signoffs or other proof that every officer viewed each regulation. But that's how they do it, and that is going to make a care of duty case really difficult.
Of course, any conclusion is possible at a jury trial no matter how strong or how weak the evidence.
I have not worked as long as you, but I have worked on CALEA and other accreditation processes and understand the impact of regulation propagation on care of duty charges. Personally, I think it is a departmental failure that regulations are propagated through an envelope full of new regulations passed around the various units with no signoffs or other proof that every officer viewed each regulation. But that's how they do it, and that is going to make a care of duty case really difficult.
Of course, any conclusion is possible at a jury trial no matter how strong or how weak the evidence.
I see what you are saying, but peace officers (or custodial officers) have an absolute obligation to prevent a pre-trial detainee from harm, even if it is not spelled out in local law, or in their particular agencies policies, it is covered by the 8th amendment. It's real hard to excuse oneself from responsibility by claiming that you didn't know that there was a rule requiring seat belts. All these guys knew about the large number of lawsuits for rough rides that had been settled out of court by Baltimore, so it would be hard for them to feign ignorance of the practice. or the injuries caused by it. I think Freddie Gray died from his 'rough ride' but after being wrong at least 50% of the time I quit trying to guess what a jury will decide.
Hmm, the linked PDF is breaking past the first half page and crashing reader on me :/
But I think I get what it is discussing... and a civil suit should have a lot better chance than a criminal case. Just way too many ways to inject reasonable doubt when the criminal case will have to center so much on the frame of mind of the defendants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
