• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

No federal charges for Baltimore cops in Freddie Gray's death

Recommended Posts

techbeck    6,469

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice will not bring charges against Baltimore police officers over the fatal injury of a black man in custody in an incident that stoked tensions between African Americans and law enforcement, federal officials said Tuesday.

 

A Justice Department criminal civil rights investigation into the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray has found “insufficient evidence” for any charges, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a statement.

 

“The Justice Department concluded that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Caesar Goodson, Officer William Porter, Officer Garrett Miller, Officer Edward Nero, Lieutenant Brian Rice, or Sergeant Alicia White willfully violated Gray’s civil rights,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “Accordingly, the investigation into this incident has been closed without prosecution.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baltimore-police/no-federal-charges-for-baltimore-cops-in-freddie-grays-death-idUSKCN1BN2V0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidroc    1,199

If I as a nurse fail to maintain safety with a patient (just like failing to buckle a handcuffed suspect in to their seet), then I can get in huge trouble for injuries that patient sustains. Maybe looking back, any type of murder charge is indeed too much. That said, failing to buckle him in directly caused his death and the music should be faced for this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,241
22 hours ago, sidroc said:

If I as a nurse fail to maintain safety with a patient (just like failing to buckle a handcuffed suspect in to their seet), then I can get in huge trouble for injuries that patient sustains. Maybe looking back, any type of murder charge is indeed too much. That said, failing to buckle him in directly caused his death and the music should be faced for this.

I don't think that's the issue in the Federal case. The Feds are looking at if there was a violation of his civil rights under the Civil Rights Act. If he received the same bad treatment that anyone else would have received then there's probably no Federal civil rights case.

 

There may still be a civil court case but that certainly doesn't fall under Federal criminal statutes, and the State criminal case has already been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,241

The story documents that the Feds determined in September 2016 there were no grounds to bring a federal civil rights case. They just didn't announce it until now. Sorry, can't blame Trump or Sessions. 

 

Meanwhile, 300 BLM protesters invaded a mall  chanting 'No Justice, No Profits!'  As if the mall, the customers, and anyone else in their way actually had anything to do with a determination made by a judge in a bench trial. 

 

There was a news report here that two police officers have been injured by demonstrators, and that U2 and at least one other artist have cancelled concert dates. 

 

https://apnews.com/82041d6fe9694ff8bec382499d149a7c/St.-Louis-braces-for-more-protests-over-cop’s-acquittal

 

Edit: 13 officers hurt

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/15/judge-acquits-white-st-louis-cop-murder-shooting-black-man/670929001/

 

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    12,750
41 minutes ago, DocM said:

The story documents that the Feds determined in September 2016 there were no grounds to bring a federal civil rights case. They just didn't announce it until now. Sorry, can't blame Trump or Sessions. 

 

Meanwhile, 300 BLM protesters invaded a mall  chanting 'No Justice, No Profits!'  As if the mall, the customers, and anyone else in their way actually had anything to do with a determination made by a judge in a bench trial. 

 

There was a news report here that two police officers have been injured by demonstrators, and that U2 and at least one other artist have cancelled concert dates. 

 

https://apnews.com/82041d6fe9694ff8bec382499d149a7c/St.-Louis-braces-for-more-protests-over-cop’s-acquittal

 

Edit: 13 officers hurt

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/15/judge-acquits-white-st-louis-cop-murder-shooting-black-man/670929001/

 

 

The judges decision was "that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly." That is what got the cop off the hook.

 

It's not hard to comprehend why these people may be a little upset over that.

 

And more to that story... for those who didn't hear about it...

 

Quote

The probable cause statement said a gun was recovered from Smith's car, but was found to only have Stockley's DNA on it.

 

On Aug. 1 — the first day of the trial — prosecutors laid out their argument, saying Stockley "executed" Smith after the chase, then planted a gun in the slain drug suspect's vehicle as an excuse for opening fire. It was the first time the prosecution revealed their belief that Stockley planted the gun.

But Stockley's attorney Neil Bruntrager said both officers saw the gun inside the car before the chase started. Stockley opened fire only after Smith refused commands to put up his hands and reached along the seat "in the area where the gun was," Bruntrager said.

In testimony on his own behalf on Aug. 8, Stockley said he “had to do what he had to do” and “would violate” any policy if the policy put his life in jeopardy. He also said Smith’s “threat to society was so high, you have to do whatever you can to stop it.”

The prosecution described a very different scene, with Assistant Circuit Attorney Aaron Levinson saying Stockley shot Smith five times, including once while standing six inches from him, which Levinson called the "kill shot." He said Stockley then returned to the Buick multiple times.

In his testimony, Stockley denied firing any execution-style “kill shot” and defended the trips to the car.

He said one trip was made to retrieve a Quick Clot kit to help stop any potential mass external bleeding. He said he placed it in his pocket and never used it because, upon visual inspection, Smith didn’t have a lot of blood outside his body.

He described his emotional state at the time as “rattled” and “not a good human response.”

“I had just shot someone,” he said.

Stockley also defended entering Smith’s car to retrieve the firearm he believed was in there. “Who better than me to look in the car?” he said.

 

Edited by wakjak
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,241
1 hour ago, wakjak said:

The judges decision was "that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly." That is what got the cop off the hook.

Besides the judge's statement being pretty much true, the vast majority of drug dealers carry a weapon to protect themselves during drive-bys and other such attacks by their fellow drug dealers or competing gang members,  the rest of the prosecution's case  depended on the presence of the cops DNA on the found firearm. AKA "Touch DNA" some skin cells, sweat etc left behind after handling.

 

The prosecution's entire case rested on the contention that only the the officer's Touch DNA was on the gun because he planted it, whch is a logical leap too far. They presumed that the deceased's Touch DNA would also be on the firearm if he had handled it, which is incorrect. TV science.

 

DNA is not always transferred to an object when someone handles it for various reasons. It can be absent due to the handler recently washing their hands, or any number of other factors. Some people simply do not shed as many skin cells as other people do, therefore  - if the deceased were not a "good shedder" he would not necessarily have left his DNA on the firearm by handling it. How long hand he has to hand gun? If he just obtained it on the street he would not necessarily have handled it that much.

 

Another problem is if it were a smooth surface - rough surfaces would be more likely to collect DNA than the smooth metal of a firearm. In numerous studies over the last 20+ years at least 40% of the people who touched a  smooth object left no "Touch DNA."

 

Therefore, the prosecution's contention has within it more than just a seed of Reasonable Doubt. Given that Reasonable Doubt the judge could not convict the officer.

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze    14,954
7 minutes ago, DocM said:

Besides the judges statement being pretty much true, the vast majority of them carry a weapon to protect themselves during drive-bys and golden such attacks by other drug dealers or competing gang members,  the rest of the prosecution's case  depended on the presence of the cops DNA on the found firearm. AKA "Touch DNA" some skin cells, sweat etc left behind after handling.

 

The prosecution's entire case rested on the contention that only the the officer's Touch DNA was on the gun because he planted it, whch is a logical leap too far. They presumed that the deceased's Touch DNA would also be on the firearm if he had handled it, which is incorrect. TV science.

 

DNA is not always transferred to an object when someone handles it for various reasons. It can be absent due to the handler recently washing their hands, or any number of other factors. Some people simply do not shed as many skin cells as other people do, therefore if the deceased were not a "good shedder" he would not necessarily have left his DNA on the firearm.

 

Another problem is if it were a smooth surface - rough surfaces would be more likely to collect DNA than the smooth metal of a firearm. In numerous studies over the last 20+ years at least 40% of the people who touched a few smooth object left no "Touch DNA."

 

Therefore, the prosecution's contention has within it more than just a seed of Reasonable Doubt. Given that Reasonable Doubt the judge could not convict the officer.

 

Not knowing what type or manufacturer of the gun, don't many guns grips have a checked, diamond or some other texture to improve grip?  Mine do.

 

Anyway it was determined that the evidence was insufficient or simply not enough for a conviction.

 

 

 

Also is it me or does your font size change?  Seems strange.  Makes it harder to read.  Just a FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,241

Not sure why that what size thing happens sometimes, but usually just cutting out the entire section and repasting it puts it back to the same size.

 

As for the engraving on a firearm, not all have it. I have many firearms  with plastic or wooden handles which are smooth. Others have the patterning, however the diamonds etc are large and not the  sandpaper-y or grater -like surface that would necessarily scrub off skin cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Raze    14,954
1 minute ago, DocM said:

Not sure why that what size thing happens sometimes, but usually just cutting out the entire section and repasting it puts it back to the same size.

 

After the engraving on a firearm, not all have it. I have many firearms  with plastic or wooden handles which are smooth. Others have the patterning, however the diamonds etc are large and not the  sandpaper-y or grater -like surface that would necessarily scrub off skin cells.

Gotcha, thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.