6 Baltimore Officers Suspended Over Death of Prisoner

[halfback20]

Crazy story today. Fox News reported that BPD shot a man from behind as he was running away. It was in the same area as the protests. Eye witnesses on the street said they "SAW" it happen. A Fox reporter said he saw the officer pull his weapon and then he heard a shot.

 

Turns out the police did not shoot the guy. I saw a video of the guy at the police station talking to his mom before they booked him. He was standing with no signs of a wound. Twitter/social media has gone nuts with false claims.

 

Which Fox reporter said he saw it? Didn't see that part on the video I watched.

[Clyde]

Which Fox reporter said he saw it? Didn't see that part on the video I watched.

 

Manuel Rapalo

[JokersWild24]

Intent is not required to get a conviction for 2nd degree murder depraved-heart from what I've read. That's how the prosecutor is able to levy a murder charge.

 

Thank you Clyde. Everyone needs to say it with us.

 

Intent is not required to get a conviction for depraved heart murder.

:banghead:

 

Intent is not required to get a conviction for depraved heart murder.

:banghead:

 

Intent is not required to get a conviction for depraved heart murder.

:banghead:

[halfback20]

If a depraved-heart homicide case goes to trial, jurors are given specific instructions on what it takes to form a conviction. An example of those instructions follow:

 

Second-Degree Depraved Heart Murder.

 

Second-degree murder is the killing of another person while acting with an extreme disregard for human life. In order to convict the defendant of second-degree murder, the State must prove:

 

(1) that the defendant caused the death of (name);

 

(2) that the defendant's conduct created a very high risk to the life of (name); and

 

(3) that the defendant, conscious of such risk, acted with extreme disregard of the life-endangering consequences.

 

 

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150502__Depraved-Heart__Murder.html#IQtKwxYeeO8gvxGO.99

[capt278]

Honestly, we probably agree on more than each of us realize.

 

In any event, I think you are confusing some of the language.

 

A textbook case of depraved heart murder would be something like shooting at a car as it goes by and that bullet ending up killing John Doe while he's riding in the back seat. You intentionally shot the gun, but you didn't say, I'm going to kill John Doe, or I'm going to kill the person in the backseat.

 

I don't see where the "malice aforethought" is, or where you are getting some of the stuff.

 

I'm 99.9999% sure that depraved heart murder doesn't require specific intent to kill a person like you are making it seem. I think the USA Today article I linked, as well as the code itself, will back that up. Here's another link, this one from the Washington Post, that explains the depraved heart.

 

What is depraved-heart murder in Maryland? - The Washington Post

 

I found the charging language from the Maryland Charging Language. Very easy to Google, just like the Maryland Statutes.

 

I understand completely, before any of your explanations, what depraved heart murder is.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult for you to understand when reading the charging language I provided. It says, in black and white, "malice aforethought". Better yet, I'll provide you with a link.

 

http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/charginglanguage.pdf

[JokersWild24]

I found the charging language from the Maryland Charging Language. Very easy to Google, just like the Maryland Statutes.

 

I understand completely, before any of your explanations, what depraved heart murder is.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult for you to understand when reading the charging language I provided. It says, in black and white, "malice aforethought". Better yet, I'll provide you with a link.

 

http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/charginglanguage.pdf

 

 

O.....k. That's a page of statutes.

 

I'm going to go slowly, because I really don't think it's the guy that's the lawyer, the USA Today, the Washington Post, and every other major media outlet that is wrong about this.

 

#1 - Malice aforethought is NOT intent. They are not the same thing. I am looking at a legal dictionary and one definition for malice aforethought is "extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (the so-called "abandoned and malignant heart"). I think that's what they're going for here should they even need to prove it past the implication.

 

#2 - If you look at the link you provided, you will see a difference.

 

First Degree Murder says: "...did feloniously, willfully and of deliberately premeditated malice aforethought kill and murder ______."

 

Second Degree Murder says "...did feloniously and with malice aforethought, kill and murder _____."

 

Notice what's missing in the second one? It's the part in first degree murder that I bolded and underlined. I think that's your idea of intent that you keep talking about.

 

#3 - Malice aforethought is NOT intent. They are not the same thing.

Edited May 5, 2015 by JokersWild24

[rjs4470]

I found the charging language from the Maryland Charging Language. Very easy to Google, just like the Maryland Statutes.

 

I understand completely, before any of your explanations, what depraved heart murder is.

 

I don't understand what is so difficult for you to understand when reading the charging language I provided. It says, in black and white, "malice aforethought". Better yet, I'll provide you with a link.

 

http://www.courts.state.md.us/district/charginglanguage.pdf

 

I would think though, that if the purpose of not restraining him and intentionally giving him a "rough" ride, was to rough him up a little, then that would qualify as "intent". The mere act of trying to cause bodily harm is enough to bring about a murder charge, even if the perpetrator wasn't trying to kill the victim. If that line of thinking is correct, then I can see how a murder charge fits this case. The challenge will be proving that placing him the vehicle unrestrained and driving erratically enough to toss him around was an intentional act designed to hurt him, or just a case of them acting negligently. The fact that the term "rough ride" exists within the department doesn't help the defendants in this case.

 

I think the term "malice aforethought" means the "intent to do harm to" not necessarily "intent to kill".

[JokersWild24]

Just saw this

.

 

Wonder if the officer who is carrying him to the van at 1:58-2:00 regrets flipping the bird and apparently giving a four letter word followed by "you" to the cameraman?

 

Wonder how the jury will take that one if it's shown to them?

[Jumper_Dad]

Just saw this

.

 

Wonder if the officer who is carrying him to the van at 1:58-2:00 regrets flipping the bird and apparently giving a four letter word followed by "you" to the cameraman?

 

Wonder how the jury will take that one if it's shown to them?

 

Should a jury see those few seconds of the video? Would that view seconds possibly bias a jury? Joker would a good defense attorney be able to keep those few seconds from the view of the jury?

[AverageJoesGym]

Should a jury see those few seconds of the video? Would that view seconds possibly bias a jury? Joker would a good defense attorney be able to keep those few seconds from the view of the jury?

 

Why shouldn't they see that part of the video? As long as they see the entirety of it I would think anything that shows the handling of the victim would be relevant. If the just show a snippet to demonstrate the unprofessional attitude of the officer I could see it being excluded but I don't see it being kept out just because the officer acted like a punk for a few seconds.

[JokersWild24]

Should a jury see those few seconds of the video? Would that view seconds possibly bias a jury? Joker would a good defense attorney be able to keep those few seconds from the view of the jury?

 

Probably going to be hard to keep them from seeing those few seconds if that's some of the only video they have of the incident and it's one of the last times you see him alive, especially given that he's in their custody.

 

Whether it's supposed to or not, what do you think the answer to the second question is?

 

And I'm sure they'll try to have it bleeped, muted, or something like that, but the other side is going to fight against it just as hard. Probably be one of those calls that's more up to the Judge than the attorneys, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they're not tossing the video because of that or anything wild like that.

 

The bystanders are talking about him being injured and them being rough with him, and a guy accused of it is saying "bleep you" to the cameraman, so it's one of those things where if it were in there, he's kind of dug his own grave you know.

 

At the end of the day, it probably all depends on how they are trying to bring it in and/or make reference to it and how the Judge feels about that.

[Milfordflash]

Anyone think this guy could have been drugged up and did intentionally hurt himself in the van? Since the cops didn't beat him he decided to beat himself and kind of over did it?

[UKMustangFan]

Anyone think this guy could have been drugged up and did intentionally hurt himself in the van? Since the cops didn't beat him he decided to beat himself and kind of over did it?

 

:lol2: Do people honestly think that?

[IceIceBaby]

:lol2: Do people honestly think that?

 

While I agree that the liklihood this occurred in THIS case is miniscule, you don't think there are sick and stupid people out there who notice all the media craze around police corruption and brutality on "innocent" people who would try to manipulate a situation and then get publicity for it? I do. I could 100% see someone trying to manipulate a situation in order to be the "Face" of a movement and get some settlement money out of it perhaps. People are so much more deviant and intelligent than we ever give them credit for, unfortunately.

[UKMustangFan]

While I agree that the liklihood this occurred in THIS case is miniscule, you don't think there are sick and stupid people out there who notice all the media craze around police corruption and brutality on "innocent" people who would try to manipulate a situation and then get publicity for it? I do. I could 100% see someone trying to manipulate a situation in order to be the "Face" of a movement and get some settlement money out of it perhaps. People are so much more deviant and intelligent than we ever give them credit for, unfortunately.

 

Do I think someone could do something like that? While unlikely, absolutely. I don't think anyone would do it to the extent that they would severe their own spinal cord though. I don't even know if that's possible.