Lt. Rice aquitted in Freddie Gray case
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
Did the guy who mis-adjusted the doors follow the training he was given? If so, I would want the guy who was responsible for training him fired. I would then want the company to pay an exorbitant sum of money to punish them for not ensuring this guy was properly trained. If the person was trained to adjust those doors in that fashion, I would not hold them accountable at all.
I do think a person who failed to train others in order to prevent a death should be fired. Yes.
Could you name the person you believe should be held responsible and what you believe their punishment should be?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Please see any of the dozens of times I've answered that throughout this thread.
This is the only time you have attempted to answer that question, but you never said who those persons are. If you don't have the information and am not sure what the names of the persons, fine. I get that you give vague answers and don't want to get locked in on giving a name because you want to keep beating a dead horse, but you have never named anyone. Your answer is left to interpretation.
You have never, not once in this thread stated what you believe their punishment should be.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I kind of did answer this, some time ago. When YOU asked:
Now, I did not put a name. Look at the protocol, see who was the person responsible for buckling him in IAW the protocol - by name - and that's the name I'd use.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I've just said what I would use as a guide.
On a positive note, it's been almost a year and a half since Freddie Gray sold any heroin. Thank you BPD!!!!!!
And Mike Brown has been drug- and crime-free for a record stretch too.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So still no answer. You are a lot on talk, but little on substance.
Actually, I've repeatedly said what I'd use as a guide. Let's say a $10,000 fine and 2 years in jail - something similar in scope to a drunk-driving accident with fatalities.
Or, we could ignore their culpability, and there would be no incentive to keep citizens safe while in custody.
One way works for me, the other seems to work for you.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Commissioner Batts was not on the scene at the time. He was not the person responsible for buckling Gray in IAW the protocol.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Do you really think the two cases are comparable? Brown tried to wrestle an officer's gun away from him, and was seen charging at the officer, and was shot intentionally in self-defense. Gray was, according to video, a POS that was in custody, in handcuffs and shackles, and who officers neglected to take proper care of.
Those are two entirely different things.
Officer Goodson was the driver of the van and therefore responsible for determining if Gray needed to be seatbelted or placed face down if he were un-cooperative. That was the policy known to Goodson at the time of Gray's arrest. The person responsible for Goodson not doing something else is Anthony Batts who was fired from the department.
Cesar Goodson, who is innocent of the accusations you make was acquitted of the crime of which you are accusing him. It is obvious you disagree with the American justice system, but that is what decided this case. Not people like you.
I'm not ignoring anyone's culpability. Batts was fired. 6.5 million dollars was paid to Freddy's estate. I, and everyone else here who has commented disagree with you. Before you used a catchphrase you heard along the way to say that Goodson was overcharged. Catchphrases are nice, but people who live in the real world have to deal with real laws. The charges against Goodson are in line with what you think he should have been charged.
Vague arguments and catchphrases are your modus operandi, but again, you lack substance.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make this a personal attack, but you do. That's on you, not me.
The charges:
Second-degree murder, depraved heart: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Manslaughter: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Second-degree assault: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Vehicular manslaughter (two counts): Not sure how one guy makes two counts, and I don't believe the manner in which the driver drove constituted a clear and present danger, so, clearly an overcharge and not in line with what I suggested
Reckless endangerment: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (only took until the sixth charge to get there)
Misconduct in office: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (two of eight - yeah, that's a good ratio
)So, the prosecution went with the "rough ride", which I've repeatedly said I disagree with. I've repeatedly called this akin to a traffic accident. Based on the means and methods the prosecution put forward (which I've also repeatedly disagreed with), the judge was forced to find not guilty - because they weren't guilty based on the evidence put forth. Read here for the Judge's ruling. It relies heavily on the state trying to suggest the "rough ride" theory, which I've repeatedly disagreed with. The state didn't prove what it needed to, because it can't, because it was trying to charge over what actually happened.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make this a personal attack, but you do. That's on you, not me.
The charges:
Second-degree murder, depraved heart: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Manslaughter: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Second-degree assault: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Vehicular manslaughter (two counts): Not sure how one guy makes two counts, and I don't believe the manner in which the driver drove constituted a clear and present danger, so, clearly an overcharge and not in line with what I suggested
Reckless endangerment: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (only took until the sixth charge to get there)
Misconduct in office: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (two of eight - yeah, that's a good ratio
So, the prosecution went with the "rough ride", which I've repeatedly said I disagree with. I've repeatedly called this akin to a traffic accident. Based on the means and methods the prosecution put forward (which I've also repeatedly disagreed with), the judge was forced to find not guilty - because they weren't guilty based on the evidence put forth. Read here for the Judge's ruling. It relies heavily on the state trying to suggest the "rough ride" theory, which I've repeatedly disagreed with. The state didn't prove what it needed to, because it can't, because it was trying to charge over what actually happened.
That's hogwash. The court, stated this;
All along you have argued that Goodson should be held accountable because a "reasonable person" should have known what could have happened if they didn't seat belt a person in, and that there was a general order which Goodson should have followed. The court disagreed with you not because he was over charged, the court looked at each of the counts and disagreed because the FACTS don't support your argument. The court firmly disagrees with you!!!
This_person
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make this a personal attack, but you do. That's on you, not me.
The charges:
Second-degree murder, depraved heart: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Manslaughter: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Second-degree assault: Clearly an overcharge - not in line with what I suggested
Vehicular manslaughter (two counts): Not sure how one guy makes two counts, and I don't believe the manner in which the driver drove constituted a clear and present danger, so, clearly an overcharge and not in line with what I suggested
Reckless endangerment: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (only took until the sixth charge to get there)
Misconduct in office: Good charge - clearly in line with what I suggested (two of eight - yeah, that's a good ratio
So, the prosecution went with the "rough ride", which I've repeatedly said I disagree with. I've repeatedly called this akin to a traffic accident. Based on the means and methods the prosecution put forward (which I've also repeatedly disagreed with), the judge was forced to find not guilty - because they weren't guilty based on the evidence put forth. Read here for the Judge's ruling. It relies heavily on the state trying to suggest the "rough ride" theory, which I've repeatedly disagreed with. The state didn't prove what it needed to, because it can't, because it was trying to charge over what actually happened.
Just to make it clear: I said two charges seem appropriate, but the way they were prosecuted is very different from what I've said, which makes them not appropriate. It's not a catch-phrase to call something what it is, which is an over charging of the officers by suggesting the "rough ride".
This_person
Well-Known Member
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. The court system fully disagreed with me in Plessy v. Ferguson, too.
It's really difficult to suggest that the medical evidence (a dead body, for example) doesn't show a high degree of risk to the life (that no longer exists) of Mr. Gray. The very fact that the law requires people to put seat belts on children (who can't look out for themselves, like a prisoner can't) shows that the reasonable people view putting seat belts on those in the reasonable person's charge is a duty.
That the court disagrees is proof enough for you. Just like Plessy, I disagree. Personally, I find the attempt at charging the officers with murder and manslaughter and forcing the court to simply assume a "rough ride" occurred because the prosecution says it did tends to prejudice the jurist against finding guilty on any count - even reasonable ones.
I look at the same evidence and have a different opinion. I think the evidence of a dead body, laws against what happened, and protocols against what happened, tend to show a risk was evident. The court disagrees. And?
This_person
Well-Known Member
...Another day, and another:
I'm sorry, I'll stop clicking on it over on your computer
Yeah, I clicked on the tread to see if there were possibly any new points being made. Nope.