MD - Freddie Gray dies in police custody #2

[CARIIS]

Mosby did not mention any rough ride.

I have always felt the driver taking the fifth has serious implications as it relates to rough ride!

 

[CARIIS]

Short answer:
I've not found text of new (~2 wks old) BPD policy or gen order re restraints in police van.
Per 1997 BPD policy - Restraining-in was not mandatory for each & every arrestee.
Paraphrasing: default is to restrain, but after evaluating circumstances, not to endanger LEO.
So exceptions on case-by-case basis are part of policy.
-Verbatim-quoting & linking 1997 pol below.
JM2cts.
_________________________________________________________________
Long answer, bringing this over from closed thread.
Footwarrior--- Thanks for tracking down policy dated 1997.
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/ba...-transport.pdf

"Whenever an arrestee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure:
> That he/she has been searched and handcuffed, (hands cuffed in the rear), before being placed in a prisoner transport vehicle or a “C. P.” truck.
> The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger.
> That the seat/restraint belt is placed securely around the waist or upper body of the arrestee to prevent the arrestee from maneuvering out of the restraint and possibly causing injury to them or others." bbm
_________________________________________________________________________________
If anyone can link new policy, it could be different. Anyone?

It is my understanding that the order regarding seat use (mandatory) came down like 4 days before . They will use that as an excuse-- you should not need a rule , when your driving another human being and that cargo being the only thing in the vhehicle and hearing it slamming about to know that you are not doing the transport in a safe way - its just not that big a mystery and to not do anything to change that certainly seems to mean, IMO, that what was happeneing back there you were content with - and THAT is not ok , as a human being in my opinion!

 

[al66pine]

It is my understanding that the order regarding seat use (mandatory) came down like 4 days before....

sbm bbm

Okay, your understanding is new policy mandates LEO to restrain arrestees w seatbelts in van.
Apparently some others here agree w you. All fine & good, no prob, but does not answer my question
and what I believe is the ultimate question re whether these LEOs failed to comply w policy.

What does newer BPD policy state - verbatim - re restraints?
Pdf of policy or general order? A link, pls, and thx in adv.

 

[shadowraiths]

The document, released by a police department spokesman, states that officers should "ensure the safety of the detainee" and that "all passengers, regardless of age and location, shall be restrained by seat belts or other authorized restraining devices."
[...]

Davey acknowledged that department policy requires seatbelts, but said "policy is policy, practice is something else," particularly if a prisoner is combative.

[...]

That April 3rd policy, updating a 1997 policy that also required detainees to be secured, is standard nationwide, said Robert Stewart, a former police chief who consults with departments and the Department of Justice on procedures the use of force. Stewart said strapping them in with seatbelts is "not the Torah," but should be adhered to whenever feasible.​

Officer dot com

 

[kaen]

The closest I could get to the policy is an article that quotes the policy.

http://7online.com/news/baltimore-p...elt-policy-with-man-killed-in-custody/674202/

 

[Elley Mae]

-- Whenever an arrestee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure

> The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger.

> That the seat/restraint belt is placed securely around the waist or upper body of the arrestee to prevent the arrestee from maneuvering out of the restraint and possibly causing injury to them or others.


http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf
September 18, 1997


I haven't found the revised one.

 

[KEVINinTO]

A poignant cartoon comparing Baltimore to Nepal

https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=htt...00.jpg&key=rFSRnyNLsjSc7RUBz5ZKSA&w=800&h=419

 

[Elley Mae]

sbm bbm

Okay, your understanding is new policy mandates LEO to restrain arrestees w seatbelts in van.
Apparently some others here agree w you. All fine & good, no prob, but does not answer my question
and what I believe is the ultimate question re whether these LEOs failed to comply w policy.

What does newer BPD policy state - verbatim - re restraints?
Pdf of policy or general order? A link, pls, and thx in adv.

That April 3rd policy, updating a 1997 policy that also required detainees to be secured, is standard nationwide, said Robert Stewart, a former police chief who consults with departments and the Department of Justice on procedures the use of force. Stewart said strapping them in with seatbelts is "not the Torah," but should be adhered to whenever feasible.

http://7online.com/news/baltimore-p...elt-policy-with-man-killed-in-custody/674202/


First bbm, Living in Md & knowing how long it takes to update state, county websites it won't surprise me if it has not been added yet.

Second bbm, http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf

 

[Trident]

A poignant cartoon comparing Baltimore to Nepal

https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=htt...00.jpg&key=rFSRnyNLsjSc7RUBz5ZKSA&w=800&h=419

Perfect - says it all, but I believe the point will be lost on many.

 

[DebinGA]

Generic pic of Baltimore police van w/unknown perp inside:

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/..._gen/derivatives/landscape_640/2354652940.jpg

I think a pic of the inside of the police van taken from the top looking down would be better at illustrating my next point, but here goes ....

It could be that the seatbelt policy mainly pertains to perps put in the back of cruisers, where sudden stops/running into something could easily cause a "loose" perp great harm. The layout of the police van seems to tell a different story, as a solid metal partition divides the already small area into two very narrow, completely separate compartments. There's no glass on the sides for the "loose" person to hit. The partition the perp is facing seems to be no more than 2' from the front edge of the seat, so an unbelted perp is seated in a very confined space to begin with. Even if FG spent most of the trip prone on the floor with Ofc. Goodson intentionally zigging and zagging, the bench seat and the partition wall would seem to have "boxed" him in, preventing his flying around and bouncing off the walls imo. FG was a small man so very sudden stops could have propelled a prone FG forward into something hard and lethal, but surely his head would show obvious signs of that.

ETA: better pic of inside of van
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015...t-map-timeline-1430440637810-master495-v4.jpg

 

[dandy]

this is new to me and i wonder why the 4/2 difference?. . . bbm:

The charges announced by State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby on Friday are just the start of the legal process. The officers have been released on bond. Two are suspended with pay and four are suspended without pay. Court records show a preliminary hearing is scheduled May 27 in Baltimore District Court for Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White, and officers Caesar Goodson, Garrett Miller, Edward Nero and William Porter.

http://www.godanriver.com/news/nati...cle_bcd813af-226d-5b29-8c28-b4a28b9a0f9f.html

 

[Elley Mae]

this is new to me and i wonder why the 4/2 difference?. . . bbm:

The charges announced by State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby on Friday are just the start of the legal process. The officers have been released on bond. Two are suspended with pay and four are suspended without pay. Court records show a preliminary hearing is scheduled May 27 in Baltimore District Court for Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White, and officers Caesar Goodson, Garrett Miller, Edward Nero and William Porter.

http://www.godanriver.com/news/nati...cle_bcd813af-226d-5b29-8c28-b4a28b9a0f9f.html

Just my opine, Nero & Miller. IIRC The bicycle cops, they have the least charges against them. jmo idk

 

[Brightbird]

Perfect - says it all, but I believe the point will be lost on many.

How is that point lost on many? I think it's quite obvious what it means. So we should all nod our head and agree?

 

[SStarr33]

To win convictions, prosecutors must get inside heads of Baltimore officers

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-baltimore-legal-strategy-20150502-story.html#page=1

 

[Trident]

How is that point lost on many? I think it's quite obvious what it means. So we should all nod our head and agree?

If that posts doesn't apply to you, just scroll on by. No need for snark.

 

[SStarr33]

Standard document used for probation:

http://www.courts.state.md.us/courtforms/joint/ccdc026.pdf

Not sure which box was checked, but note this:

6. Get permission from the court before owning, possessing, using, or having under your control any dangerous weapon or firearm of any description.

 

[Brightbird]

If that posts doesn't apply to you, just scroll on by. No need for snark.

It wasn't meant to be snark. Sorry if it sounded like it. I consider myself one of the many, and I don't think it was lost on me. The cartoon is saying that the Nepalese are devastated, and why would anyone do that to themselves. I get the message but I think it's missing the point. I don't appreciate patronising remarks either.

 

[SStarr33]

Is this correct that there will be a GJ?

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/02/freddie-grays-family-says-they-want-justice-in-his-death/

for some reason I thought she is bypassing that.

 

[K_Z]

A poignant cartoon comparing Baltimore to Nepal

https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=htt...00.jpg&key=rFSRnyNLsjSc7RUBz5ZKSA&w=800&h=419

Perfect - says it all, but I believe the point will be lost on many.

It wasn't meant to be snark. Sorry if it sounded like it. I consider myself one of the many, and I don't think it was lost on me. The cartoon is saying that the Nepalese are devastated, and why would anyone do that to themselves. I get the message but I think it's missing the point. I don't appreciate patronising remarks either.

Interesting. What point do you think it's missing?

I think the cartoonist got it exactly right. There are many layers of meaning there, not just the obvious, IMO.

I do think it is essential that we all nod our heads and agree with the meaning in that cartoon. There is nothing to disagree with there, IMO, unless one believes intentional destruction of 13 pharmacies, a 16 million dollar old folks home, dozens of city and privately owned vehicles destroyed, 16 police officers hospitalized from violent assaults, 250 local businesses destroyed, hundreds of fires, etc-- is "okay". How could any person on earth other than a rioting criminal, think that is okay? There is no level of poverty, no level of disenfranchisement, no level of frustration, no level of boredom, no level of "I'm poor and mad", for people living in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, that justifies and excuses what happened in Baltimore last Monday-- or in Ferguson a few months ago.

Something tells me that the desperately poor people of Nepal, digging out from a natural disaster, and mourning the loss of 7500 of their innocent citizens, would not burn their own cities down, even if they wished their lives were more prosperous.

 

[Trident]

Is this correct that there will be a GJ?

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/02/freddie-grays-family-says-they-want-justice-in-his-death/

for some reason I thought she is bypassing that.

That is rather confusing. Thanks for point it out.