Question for lawyers about charges against Baltimore cops...

[tomneal]

I am interested in the charging the police officer with ' false imprisonment ' because, the police arrested Freddie Gray for possession of an "illegal switchblade" which was not a switchblade and was not illegal.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

If police officers start getting charged with 'false imprisonment', how long will it be until they quit making arrests?

[cb1000rider]

I am interested in the charging the police officer with ' false imprisonment ' because, the police arrested Freddie Gray for possession of an "illegal switchblade" which was not a switchblade and was not illegal.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Actually, it often is a valid excuse if you're an officer acting in an official capacity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not a valid excuse if you were ignorant of the law AND most normal people would know otherwise... It's that second bit that provides the immunity.

IE - if a 5" blade is illegal and a 4" blade isn't, as long as most reasonable people don't know the difference, an officer making an arrest for a 4" blade is immune from liability.

Welcome to 'Murica...

To me, the bigger problem is asking prosecutors to prosecute the police at all. Prosecutors depend on their relationship with law enforcement. Asking them to turn on a dime probably isn't going to be completely without at least implied consequences. It simply can't be an impartial system.

[jerry_r60]

This is not intended to be a discussion about the dustup over the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, and the subsequent charges against the 6 Baltimore officers. It's just that I was reading an LA Times article about what legal experts (presumably in L.A.) think the odds are of the officers actually being convicted of the more serious charges, and that sparked a question in my mind about Texas law.

Here is the article I am reading: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bal ... tml#page=1

In paragraph 5, the article says:

The most serious charge, against the driver of the van, Officer Ceasar Goodson, is second-degree “depraved heart’’ murder, which involves a special degree of reckless indifference. But proving that charge beyond a reasonable doubt is a significant challenge, according to defense lawyers and former prosecutors.

The phrase "'depraved heart' murder" got my attention. Can anyone define what kinds of things would be considered "a special degree of reckless indifference"; AND, does Texas have any enhancement to charges analogous to "depraved heart" in our laws, what is it called here, and if so, in what kind of circumstances would it be applied?

If others want to comment or have some "inside ball" knowledge of the subject, feel free to opine, but I was particularly wondering what members of the Texas Bar would say about it.

And, to make it related to CHL, unless you do something really REALLY stupid, is a CHL ever likely to face a similar enhancement to charges in the event of a self-defense shooting?

I'm not worried. This is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

(Mods, I wasn't sure what forum to put this in. Please move if necessary.)

I am not a lawyer however I found your question interesting and did a quick google. I don't know what I don't know but this gave some definitions for Texas: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.19.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another link: http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/stu ... /TX_11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't see anyting that looked like "depraved heart" to me.

[VMI77]

This is not intended to be a discussion about the dustup over the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, and the subsequent charges against the 6 Baltimore officers. It's just that I was reading an LA Times article about what legal experts (presumably in L.A.) think the odds are of the officers actually being convicted of the more serious charges, and that sparked a question in my mind about Texas law.

Here is the article I am reading: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bal ... tml#page=1

In paragraph 5, the article says:

The most serious charge, against the driver of the van, Officer Ceasar Goodson, is second-degree “depraved heart’’ murder, which involves a special degree of reckless indifference. But proving that charge beyond a reasonable doubt is a significant challenge, according to defense lawyers and former prosecutors.

The phrase "'depraved heart' murder" got my attention. Can anyone define what kinds of things would be considered "a special degree of reckless indifference"; AND, does Texas have any enhancement to charges analogous to "depraved heart" in our laws, what is it called here, and if so, in what kind of circumstances would it be applied?

If others want to comment or have some "inside ball" knowledge of the subject, feel free to opine, but I was particularly wondering what members of the Texas Bar would say about it.

And, to make it related to CHL, unless you do something really REALLY stupid, is a CHL ever likely to face a similar enhancement to charges in the event of a self-defense shooting?

I'm not worried. This is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.

(Mods, I wasn't sure what forum to put this in. Please move if necessary.)

Well, one issue could be that while the courts have generally ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals, they have carved out two exceptions, and one is for people in their custody. Whatever happened in this case, they obviously failed to protect a person in their custody.

[VMI77]

I am interested in the charging the police officer with ' false imprisonment ' because, the police arrested Freddie Gray for possession of an "illegal switchblade" which was not a switchblade and was not illegal.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Actually, it often is a valid excuse if you're an officer acting in an official capacity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not a valid excuse if you were ignorant of the law AND most normal people would know otherwise... It's that second bit that provides the immunity.

IE - if a 5" blade is illegal and a 4" blade isn't, as long as most reasonable people don't know the difference, an officer making an arrest for a 4" blade is immune from liability.

Welcome to 'Murica...

To me, the bigger problem is asking prosecutors to prosecute the police at all. Prosecutors depend on their relationship with law enforcement. Asking them to turn on a dime probably isn't going to be completely without at least implied consequences. It simply can't be an impartial system.

I've read of ignorance much more blatant that your example about knives. It would be more accurate to say that ignorance of the law is only an excuse if you're a government employee. Can't limit it to cops because it apparently doesn't apply to agencies like the IRS, DOJ, the State Department, or the White House either, and there are probably other examples. IOW, the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only applies to us proles.

[VoiceofReason]

Like all the other recent high profile events. We have no real solid information.

First thing I have heard is that the Police say that a large portion of people arrested ask to be taken to the hospital rather than to the jail. Will this be the new norm in Baltimore? I betcha it is already starting.

Second, I heard that the suspect had drugs in his system.

Third, he is a police informant, someone they knew, thus they didn't seat belt him.

Forth, he injured himself. Is there any proof of this rough ride everyone mentioned? Was the other passenger injured or did he speak of a rough ride. Was there a bolt that matched his injuries in the van? Was his blood on it?

Fifth, no mention of the hospital care he received. He lived for a week. What did he die of? Would taking him immediately to the hospital have saved his life? Certain situations we call "hurry cases" where time is of the essence ie: heart attack. Spinal injury is not one of those. Since he arrived alive, did his spinal injury get worse in the hospital? Why? Could there have been an accident moving him in the hospital that made his condition much worse?

Sixth, no one has mentioned that the police beat him. So I assume they did not. The only two explanations for the spinal injury are the rough ride and self inflicted. Having never been in a paddy wagon, I am still having trouble seeing how this is more than just being uncomfortable.

Seventh, did he really have an outstanding warrant?

Will we have to wait until there is a trial two years from now to answer all of this?

Does anyone on this thread know what “waffling” a prisoner means?

Many years ago when some officers arrested a particularly difficult subject and on the way to jail he mouthed off and even spit on the deputies the driver would sometimes hit the brakes hard.

This would result in the expanded steel grill leaving a “waffle” shaped imprint on the subjects face. Usually it didn’t take more than two of these for the subject to stop spitting and act a little more civilized. They have clear plastic dividers now.

I am not saying anything like this happened and I never did it myself but it is worth keeping in mind. Violently swerving, panic stops and quick acceleration from a stop could throw a man around the back of that van like a rag doll.