I agree that she was overzealous with the types of charges she brought and perhaps without all the evidence she needed to successfully prosecute, but I think she may have been trying to keep the lid on a boiling pot that had already scalded a city.

Not saying it's right, but I think it was more that, then her trying to be overemotional.

Does judiciious prosecutorial discretion attone for inemperate indiscrettion?

The civil courts will decide.

Goose wrote:

How was this at all like the Duke Lacrosse rape case?
Did someone discover that Freddy Gray wasn't actually dead?

 
No, Freddie Gray is definitely dead, it's just that the cops who were unjustifiably prosecuted are not responsible for his death.

Goose wrote:

And no one determined that the police were not responsible for his death. There simply was not enough evidence to support murder charges.

Legal guilt on a charge of murder and responsibility are different things and one would be wise to avoid conflating the two. When an officer of the law restrains a suspect and takes him into custody he assumes some responsibility for that suspect's safety. On this there is longstanding agreement. And when that suspect suffers a fatal injury during a routine transport, well let's just say that it is not an example of best practices in policing.
Obviously. Anyone can see that.

The city paid a large setllement to the family. A de facto admission of responsibility.
It is what it is.

That is an excellent summary of the one of the principle differences between criminal law and civil law.

Guilt : Responsibility :: Criminal : Civil
 

tennyson wrote:

Tarnation wrote:

Goose wrote:

And no one determined that the police were not responsible for his death. There simply was not enough evidence to support murder charges.

Legal guilt on a charge of murder and responsibility are different things and one would be wise to avoid conflating the two. When an officer of the law restrains a suspect and takes him into custody he assumes some responsibility for that suspect's safety. On this there is longstanding agreement. And when that suspect suffers a fatal injury during a routine transport, well let's just say that it is not an example of best practices in policing.
Obviously. Anyone can see that.

The city paid a large setllement to the family. A de facto admission of responsibility.
It is what it is.

That is an excellent summary of the one of the principle differences between criminal law and civil law.

Guilt : Responsibility :: Criminal : Civil
 

Just so we are clear, there was NO civil suit. The city decided to pay the amount to avoid a long, protracted, and likely divisive civil suit. There were people praising as well as people totally against the settlement. 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-boe-20150908-story.html

 
Yes, I was aware of that. But, thank you for the clarification.

I would amend your statement to "The city decided to pay the amount to avoid a long, protracted, and likely divisive civil suit, which they very well may have lost"
(My words in blue)

Tarnation touched on the differences bewteen criminal and civil proceedings.
To elaborate, the burden of proof is different. In civil cases a plaintiff can use the concept of Res ipsa loquitur , or "The thing speaks for itself". In personal injury law, the concept of res ipsa loquitur  operates as an evidentiary rule that allows plaintiffs to establish a rebuttable presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant through the use of circumstantial evidence. This means that while plantiffs typically have to prove that the defendant acted with a negligent state of mind, through res ipsa loquitur, if the plaintiff puts forth certain circumstantial facts, it becomes the defendant's burden to prove he or she was not negligent.
http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/res-ipsa-loquitur.html

Sometimes, direct evidence of the defendant's negligence doesn't exist, but plaintiffs can still use circumstantial evidence in order to establish negligence. In this case, a healthy 25 year old is taken into custody by police, and restrained. The officers did not secure him inside the van while driving to the police station, contrary to a policy that had been put into effect six days prior to Gray's arrest, following review of other transport-related injuries sustained during police custody in the city.

 At the end of a routine transport, one that did NOT involve an accident, gray is found to have a neck fracture that caused his death. A jury in a civiil case was extremely likely to judge that negligence, or responsibility for the injury lay with the police using the concept of Res Ipsa loquitur.

Last edited by Goose (7/29/2016 10:18 am)