OT - Same Attorney General Baltimore Cops/Tom & Bishop

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by 93legendti

Oh.

Say, what are your legal qualifications?

I was a federal investigator and used to arrest people and then their is my MS in Forensic Science. Unlike Mr. D I'm not selling anything, however, you do cite some good schools. If you like I can send you my G'town and Yale credentials.

Alan Dershowitz is all about his brand - and his brand is Fox news - that's pretty much a fact. Fox News has a stance on this and so Alan is pulling the talking points.

Come on, bro.

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by 93legendti

Oh.

I never learned about murder by lack of seatbelt when I took Criminal Law at Michigan's Law School. Fascinating.

SIGH . . . ok, let's do this in bike terms.

"Hey, watch this - see that idiot riding his bike - F' Him - I'm gonna pull my truck real close to him and clip him with my mirror." - Idiot does this, but the result is he hits the bike rider and kills him. That is Depraved-heart murder. While there was no intent to kill anyone the fact that one was partaking in something knowing that they were, in fact, endangering someone else and playing with their health and life means you get that charge should they die.

If, however, the rider survives the incident then the charge is reckless endangerment - that is the distinction.

If your law studies didn't cover this you might want to ask for some kind of refund.

[Vientomas]

I believe this to be the Maryland jury instruction for 2nd degree murder:

SECOND DEGREE MURDER Second degree murder is the killing of another person with either the intent to kill or the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result. Second degree murder does not require premeditation or deliberation. In order to convict the defendant of second degree murder, the State must prove: (1) that the defendant caused the death of (name); and (2) that the defendant engaged in the deadly conduct either with the intent to kill or with the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

Then the notion you are furthering is that there is no conclusion one can draw about another person that does not involve a conscience or subconscience factoring of the individuals race. To what degree this factors into action matters a great deal. If this was. 25 year old known drug dealer, frequent arrests and interactions with police, who ran when he saw police,...by the way, he is white, I suspect the police would have acted the exact same way.

I don't think that's true of people generally, but I think it's probably true of almost any cop who's sent in to control a very VERY tough, predominantly African American neighborhood. Or a very very tough hispanic neighborhood, or very very tough white neighborhood for that matter. That white drug dealer you speak of would probably be treated similarly in a neighborhood where they were used to seeing him do business, but place him in West Baltimore suddenly and I'd guess the result would be different.

It's just one of a lot of inputs that a cop in that situation has to process very quickly and I think they adopt shorthand, as probably anyone would. Race is one part of that. I think it's mostly driven by economics more than race, but the correlations mean that the victims are disproportionately black if not quite exclusively. When looked at on a national level, I think that conclusion is unavoidable. You can argue the details of any individual case, but the pattern is overwhelming. Baltimore is just the latest flash point and seems to be the straw that may have broken the camel's back to some degree.

If Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Walter Scott hadn't also been black, do you really think this reaction would have happened in Baltimore after Freddie Gray was killed? Indirectly as it may have been, race was involved.

-Ray

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by Ray

I don't think that's true of people generally, but I think it's probably true of almost any cop who's sent in to control a very VERY tough, predominantly African American neighborhood. Or a very very tough hispanic neighborhood, or very very tough white neighborhood for that matter. That white drug dealer you speak of would probably be treated similarly in a neighborhood where they were used to seeing him do business, but place him in West Baltimore suddenly and I'd guess the result would be different.

Well said, the only thing I would add - that tough, run down, drug dealing white neighborhood - that black kid that wonders in there, the cops are gonna be on him every time. Every. Time. That's the distinction.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by velomonkey

I was a federal investigator and used to arrest people and then their is my MS in Forensic Science. Unlike Mr. D I'm not selling anything, however, you do cite some good schools. If you like I can send you my G'town and Yale credentials.

Alan Dershowitz is all about his brand - and his brand is Fox news - that's pretty much a fact. Fox News has a stance on this and so Alan is pulling the talking points.

Come on, bro.

Seriously? Dershowitz is as liberal as any Cambridge lawyer could be. He's defending the police unions, plain and simple.

I applaud Mosby but she is going to get run over by a freight train. The union lawyers will crush her, then the city will erupt in more violence.

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

Seriously? Dershowitz is as liberal as any Cambridge lawyer could be.

Sorry, bro - you're stuck back in the 1990s. That guy sold out a long, long time ago.

Of course, challenging Obama on Fox news is the path all liberals take . . . . if this doesn't work, let me know what you want. I got links galore.

9:17pm and the city seems peaceful to me and right now, like children, they are told to be home by 10pm and there is a big boxing fight going on if you haven't heard.

[1centaur]

I am for: justice and due process. I am against: prosecutors who do anything for reasons other than justice and due process. I don't know where this one is shaking out yet, so I will wait.

If Vientomas has that jury instruction right, the prosecution will have a tough time making the case that they should have expected deadly injuries. If she overcharged the case to make a statement, I am not a fan for reasons both present and future. Feels like the cops did something/a lot wrong, in a way I think they often do regardless of race, and I wish the debate was focused on that rather than race.

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I am for: justice and due process. I am against: prosecutors who do anything for reasons other than justice and due process. I don't know where this one is shaking out yet, so I will wait.

If Vientomas has that jury instruction right, the prosecution will have a tough time . . . . .

SIGH. . . again. This charge is NOT the charge you listed. Here, do yourself a favor, anyone, do yourself a favor and read this and then try to say otherwise.

This is a specific charge, in a state that has this charge, for a reason - the incidents fits it. People who know way, way, way more than you chose said charge for a reason . . . and it's not to calm down others.

“It is a deliberate act that is so dangerous that it shows total indifference to someone else’s life,” - if you can't see that, at least as it extends to a charge, then you have an agenda.

[Vientomas]

Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Diallo Mugabe DISHMAN v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 12, Sept. Term, 1998.
Decided: December 21, 1998

Depraved heart does not require an intent to kill.   2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 145, at 287 (15th ed.1994).   Depraved heart murder requires that the “defendant ․ commit an act imminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved and malignant heart regardless of human life and fatally bent on mischief.  * * * He is indifferent as to whether death results, or he may even hope that it will not result.”   2 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 145, at 286-87 (15th ed.1994).   As noted above, the gross negligence variation of involuntary manslaughter requires reckless or wanton conduct.   See Albrecht, 336 Md. at 499, 649 A.2d at 348.   Thus, counsel for both sides agreed that the facts generated the jury question of whether Dishman acted recklessly or with gross negligence to cause the death of Hart.8 Counsel for the State and defense were, in essence, arguing for different gradations of homicide offenses that do not require a specific intent to kill.9  While our cases have not drawn a precise line between depraved heart murder and involuntary manslaughter and we are not called upon to do so in this case, we observe that the difference is one of the degree of culpability.   In defining both crimes we have used the term “reckless.”   See Duren v. State, 203 Md. 584, 590, 102 A.2d 277, 280 (1954)(gross negligence variation of involuntary manslaughter requires “reckless disregard for human life”);   Robinson v. State, 307 Md. 738, 744, 517 A.2d 94, 97 (1986)(depraved heart murder involves “ ‘the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act’ ”)(quoting DeBettencourt v. State, 48 Md.App. 522, 530, 428 A.2d 479, 484 (1981)).   The subtlety between the offenses is evident in the Maryland pattern jury instructions.   Depraved heart murder requires that the defendant must “act[ ] with extreme disregard of the life-endangering consequences” and with a “very high degree of risk to ․ life,” while involuntary manslaughter requires that the defendant act in a “grossly negligent manner ․ that created a high degree of risk to human life.”   Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions 4:17.8(B), at 258-59 (1997)(emphasis added).   Both crimes require that the defendant be conscious of the risk to human life of his or her conduct.   See id.;  Robinson, 307 Md. at 745, 517 A.2d at 98;  Albrecht, 336 Md. at 500, 649 A.2d at 348.   As Professors LaFave & Scott have observed:

“The distinctions between an unreasonable risk and a high degree of risk and a very high degree of risk are, of course, matters of degree, and there is no exact boundary line between each category;  they shade gradually like a spectrum from one group to another.”  (Footnote omitted).

LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 7.4, at 200 (1986).   See also Samuel H. Pillsbury, Crimes of Indifference, 49 Rutgers L.Rev. 105, 121 (1996)(“Involuntary manslaughter normally covers less risky behavior than that of depraved-heart murder;  i.e., conduct less obviously dangerous and, perhaps, more justifiable.”  (Footnote omitted)).

[1centaur]

So if we go from the second degree murder charge instruction, the "if" in my statement, to the depraved heart second degree murder charge, as defined in those two sources (total, or extreme, disregard for human life) then it's at least arguable. The defense will be straightforward: the seatbelt law was put in 2 weeks earlier, we've driven around thousands of prisoners in the manner of this one over the years (as a police department), and not one of them died (if that is the case). That would be an open and shut repudiation of "total" disregard for human life. If they literally have never driven anyone around like that, which seems hard to believe, then the outcome might seem to prove the charge to some juries.

And, SIGH, my agenda is thinking things through, not starting from an already formed conclusion.

[verticaldoug]

I have a simple question. The original arrest was for possession of a switchblade. However, the knife in question was not a switchblade but a folding knife with a locking blade which is legal. If the original arrest was false, then everything which followed was predicated on that falsehood? His detainment, his transport and utimately death. Does this have a baring on the outcome?

[Rada]

Why was the seat belt procedure changed? A number of people have been injured in these rides with at least one other receiving serious injuries. The police themselves called it a "rough ride" implying that some injury could be expected. It is an obvious tactic used by the BPD that violates the rights of those detained.

[velomonkey]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

The defense will be straightforward: the seatbelt law was put in 2 weeks earlier, we've driven around thousands of prisoners in the manner of this one over the years (as a police department), and not one of them died (if that is the case). That would be an open and shut repudiation of "total" disregard for human life.

Two simple things: driving a van is not a static variable - it's dynamic, you can go faster, take corners at different speeds and do more things to try and give the prisoner "a ride for their money."

Since 1997 in Baltimore - not including Gray - 3 other people have been paralyzed after being totally healthy getting the van, coming out paralyzed. One later died - again, not Gray.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...501-story.html

The difference, the DA is bringing charges. Heck, one of their own cops said it was unsactioned way to punish people.

Sorry, bro, just giving you the facts. Sorry if it doesn't work for the narrative you want.

[1centaur]

I no longer have sympathy for you, bro. I told you flat out I am not looking for narratives and you decided I was lying. That's a character problem.

For the rest of you, the stats will be interesting because the best way to defend against a murder charge is to admit to a departmental indifference to injury. "We do it all the time, lots of people got a little banged up, 1 person died but these guys did not know that (or some variation on that theme). 99.8% non-death rate is better than driving your car at night (or some variation of that) so how can you call it "total" or "extreme" disregard for life. I think we can agree it is total disregard for human injury."