Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray - Polidicks

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-porter-trial-jury-wednesday-20151216-story.html]Source[/url] [quote]A mistrial was declared Wednesday in the trial of Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter, after jurors told a judge it could not reach a verdict on any of the four charges against him. The panel had informed the judge on Tuesday that it was deadlocked, and Judge Barry G. Williams ordered them to continue deliberations. Porter, 26, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. He is the first of six police officers to stand trial in the death of Freddie Gray. Gray, 25, suffered a broken neck and severe spinal cord injury in the back of a police transport van after his arrest on April 12. His death a week later prompted widespread protests against police brutality, and his funeral was followed by the most intense rioting and looting in the city since the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby charged Porter and five other officers in Gray's arrest and death on May 1, and many have watched the proceedings in Porter's trial closely.[/quote]

I really hope people stay calm about this. The case was very, very weak from what I heard

[quote]Porter, 26, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office.[/quote] Definition of throwing the book at the wall and hoping shit sticks. Prosecutor should have chosen one charge that they knew would be a slam dunk.

thats what happens when you have a city prosecutor who doesnt know how to think and take the time to prepare a case before instantly trying to further her political career by attempting to win over the hopes and minds of the people who don't even vote

Hope that the prosecution can make something work in a retrial. "Rough rides" shouldn't be a thing, and setting up legal precedent against them (especially for someone who was already seriously injured) is a massive step in the right direction towards police accountability.

Here we go.

I only care enough to comment on my apathy.

Here comes the riots

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49332010]Hope that the prosecution can make something work in a retrial. "Rough rides" shouldn't be a thing, and setting up legal precedent against them (especially for someone who was already seriously injured) is a massive step in the right direction towards police accountability.[/QUOTE] There was no evidence it was a "rough ride". That's just se bullshit that got started at the very beginning [editline]16th December 2015[/editline] Remember this was considered to be the strongest case out of them all

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49332010]Hope that the prosecution can make something work in a retrial. "Rough rides" shouldn't be a thing, and setting up legal precedent against them (especially for someone who was already seriously injured) is a massive step in the right direction towards police accountability.[/QUOTE] I won't hope that the Prosecution comes up with a way to convict him, nor will I hope that the defense comes up with a way to exonerate him. I instead will hope that justice is carried out.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49331475]I really hope people stay calm about this. The case was very, very weak from what I heard[/QUOTE] From recent cases like this, I expect no.

[QUOTE]Porter, 26, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. [/QUOTE] I don't think I've ever seen someone charged with things like assault and reckless endangerment when they are also being charged with some type of homicide. I always thought that the charges changed based on how far the person went, not stacked. Like if you started beating someone, it would be assault, but if you ended up killing them, it would change to manslaughter, not keep assault and add manslaughter on top of it.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49332010]Hope that the prosecution can make something work in a retrial. "Rough rides" shouldn't be a thing, and setting up legal precedent against them (especially for someone who was already seriously injured) is a massive step in the right direction towards police accountability.[/QUOTE] The fact that you want something to stick just shows you don't really want justice.

Now I'm sure we will settle this problem like civilized people.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49332518]I don't think I've ever seen someone charged with things like assault and reckless endangerment when they are also being charged with some type of homicide. I always thought that the charges changed based on how far the person went, not stacked. Like if you started beating someone, it would be assault, but if you ended up killing them, it would change to manslaughter, not keep assault and add manslaughter on top of it.[/QUOTE] You, typically, cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So in a typical 'murder' you would likely be charged with one item, like homicide. However, they can apply multiple charges if they believe that in conducting the one crime you comitted others, for instance: Suppose I'm drunk and for fun, because I'm a sick person, I break in to a person's home. They shout at me and tell me to leave, and on a whim I begin beating them, and accidentally kill them. I have committed three crimes -Breaking and Entering (When I broke in to their home) -Aggravated Assault (When I began assaulting them, because they wanted me to leave) -Manslaughter (Because I committed a murder, without the intent or premeditation of having done it.) This is how those charges have been applied to the officer. It is, in some sense, 'throwing the book at them,' but it is technically just to hold a trial if it is even suspected they committed that array of crimes. Most alleged criminals don't have the book thrown at them because it's a waste of resources and the additive sentencing would be burdensome, or could get the results overturned as unduly cruel punishment.

Manslaughter and murder are the greyest of grey areas I've ever seen in a legal proceeding. I didn't intend to kill the shit out of you, but it doesn't stop you from being less dead.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;49332840]Manslaughter and murder are the greyest of grey areas I've ever seen in a legal proceeding. I didn't intend to kill the shit out of you, but it doesn't stop you from being less dead.[/QUOTE] They're hardly grey. In fact, it's easier to 'prove' manslaughter than it is to prove any other sort of 'murder.' All you have to demonstrate for manslaughter is that the actions taken by the suspect, regardless of intent, lead to the wrongful death of the victim, and that there is not a reasonable belief that the suspect's actions were responsible, well thought out, or well intentioned. Here, this explains it pretty clearly: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees[/url] It makes sense to punish people more strongly for one sort of murder than another. Unless you're the sort that believes "A life taken = A life taken" therefor the only punishment fitting for murder is life imprisonment or the death sentence.

[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1497774[/url] Posted five hours ago by me