By that utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) type of argument, almost any cop can justify not intervening in any particular situation to save one specific individual. But what if the guy was threatening EVERYONE in the whole subway car with his presence? Or, by not intervening (allowing the suspect to kill the heroic guy), everyone else was consequently put in danger as a result?

 

Sounds like something that a bunch of insurance companies and lawyers developed to protect cities from civil litigation.

 

It's most certainly a defense so that cities aren't sued daily for failing to act. Normally I'd agree with that in most situations. However in this case, I dunno. It's certainly willful and wanton behavior on his part. It's not like he failed to act by accident (e.g., not knowing the mad man was on the train, trying to help one person while another was hurt, etc.). If the guy can bring a suit and i'm on the jury, i'm finding against the city. And the cop should be fired immediately regardless.

Sounds like the first trial on the Freddie Gray case will be a mistrial. Deadlocked after 2 days and 9 hours deliberating. Judge told the jury to keep trying.

Sounds like the first trial on the Freddie Gray case will be a mistrial. Deadlocked after 2 days and 9 hours deliberating. Judge told the jury to keep trying.

Mistrail.

 

The grand jury in the Tamir Rice case has turned into a gigantic circus. Really need a national push for independent AD's when there are police involved as defendants.

http://www.ecbalaw.com/wp-content/uploads/...Rice-Letter.pdf

 

Last week, after taking the unusual step of asking the crime victim’s family to gather evidence to present to the grand jury (when that should be the prosecutor’s job), the prosecutors put the expert witnesses located by Tamir’s family on the stand. But, instead of allowing them to explain their findings to the grand jury, the prosecutors immediately launched into an improper cross-examination that included smirking and mocking the experts, pointing a toy gun in an expert’s face, and suggesting that the experts were not sufficiently concerned with preserving the police officers’ “liberty interest.” This treatment of the expert witnesses who Tamir’s family had to find after the prosecutor refused to do so made it clear that these prosecutors are not engaged in a search for truth or justice, but rather are conducting a charade process aimed at exonerating the officers. In light of the prosecutors’ extreme bias, we are compelled to bring this situation to your attention and request a formal intervention by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).

In December, Mr. McGinty allowed Officers Loehmann and Garmback (i.e., the shooter and the driver of the vehicle) to read prepared, self-serving statements to the grand jury after taking the oath, and then invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer a single question.1 Prosecutor McGinty never went to the court to seek an order compelling the officers to answer questions or face the required sanction of contempt.

No charges.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-na...xpected-monday/

 

 

Absurd.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/us/tamir-ric...ting/index.html

 

Ugh, those officers are still employed. That's even more f***ed up than not charging them for murder.

From the defense attorney's prosecutor's press conference:

 

"We don't second guess police officers"

 

The prosecutors also recommended to the grand jury that no charges be made and did everything they could to ensure that.

Now this will cause a riot and rightfully so.

Cleveland is now sending Tamir Rice's family a bill for the ambulance ride.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clevel...ce-bill-n516281

Wow, the driver is found not guilty on all six charges brought against him ("depraved-heart" murder, manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and reckless endangerment).

Legal murder.

 

 

She should be our next Attorney General...

What were some of the facts against the driver? If he was driving the van, could he have done anything to contribute to this?

What were some of the facts against the driver? If he was driving the van, could he have done anything to contribute to this?

 

I don't remember the specifics, but out of all the cops, he seemed to be the must culpable.

Wow.

Sounds like the judge had a serious issue with the prosecution continually using the phrase "rough ride" without offering any evidence or explanation for what that meant or what specifically the driver did to make it a rough ride:

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/06/23/o...his-fate-today/

 

Inside court, with high security present, “People were quiet … There were a few people shaking their heads, some people who were emotionless,” WJZ’s Mike Hellgren reports.

 

“The judge said that the evidence simply was not there, that there was no way that Officer Goodson would have known that Freddie Gray was injured until that final stop at the Western district, and that’s when a medic was called. He chided the state for using the term ‘rough ride,’ he said that it’s a highly-charged term, they failed to define it.”

 

Hellgren says “the prosecution’s theory of the case did not fit the facts that they had presented to the judge and he was clearly troubled by this.”

 

“I find it hard to believe that he would convict any of the officers in any of the four remaining trials to come,” Hellgren says.

Sounds like the judge had a serious issue with the prosecution continually using the phrase "rough ride" without offering any evidence or explanation for what that meant or what specifically the driver did to make it a rough ride:

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/06/23/o...his-fate-today/

 

I can appreciate that argument. It still makes me shake my head in disbelief. I assume that the prosecutor was using "rough ride" in the cop vernacular not the standard English meaning. So they would need to define it and prove the definition was used by the cops involved.

I can appreciate that argument. It still makes me shake my head in disbelief. I assume that the prosecutor was using "rough ride" in the cop vernacular not the standard English meaning. So they would need to define it and prove the definition was used by the cops involved.

i had read a story that the prosecutors main witness was a guy who claimed to be an expert in rough rides because of 'stories he heard' and having been in the system himself a few times. Wasn't there, he just 'knows things'. Can't find that link now, but if I do, I will post it.

Classic case of a prosecutor being appointed because of political clout more than ability and then royally screwing up a case.

 

Hmm, sounds familiar!

Classic case of a prosecutor being appointed because of political clout more than ability and then royally screwing up a case.

 

Hmm, sounds familiar!

 

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...HODfK5lu4PPjnlQ

 

 

This is what happens when you over charge a case. What a joke she is......

Classic case of a prosecutor being appointed because of political clout more than ability and then royally screwing up a case.

 

Hmm, sounds familiar!

 

Chicago may see a good amount of these types things in the next couple years with their new state's attorney.

 

This will be another factor in the increase in crime in the city and cook county

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...HODfK5lu4PPjnlQ

 

 

This is what happens when you over charge a case. What a joke she is......

 

They had lesser counts in there though. I think the issue the judge had was (1) not putting on a seat belt alone isn't a crime or negligent misconduct, and (2) no one could really prove that the ride was "rough."

 

I'm still not sure how there's not SOME criminal element there, but I suppose that decision could start a bad precedent that cops can be criminally charged and convicted if they arrest someone and then negligently handle them. That's what civil penalties are for. It's absolutely wrong, but criminal?

Classic case of a prosecutor being appointed because of political clout more than ability and then royally screwing up a case.

 

Hmm, sounds familiar!

Mosby was elected, not appointed. She was brand new when this happened.

Mosby was elected, not appointed. She was brand new when this happened.

 

 

Says alot about who elected her, and why..

Mosby was elected, not appointed. She was brand new when this happened.

 

I should have put appointed in quotes. Yes, technically it was an election, but at least here in Chicago elections are "appointments" by those in power.