Baltimore trial ends end hung jury

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"in charge" of what?

The vicarious responsibility of a supervisor is dependent on the wrongful activity of the subordinate. If the subordinate did nothing lawfully wrong, then there is no liability on the supervisor's alleged failure to supervise. The State still has to prove "knowledge" and "intent" on the part of the supervisor.

You are only referring to criminal and not civil culpability, correct?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

Yes, I believe that has a chance of happening. I bet he saw the blacks on the jury and dared the state to try him.

The "word" is the State needs Porter to burn the White officers. The loose canon media hound of a prosecutor needs "a conviction" .... any "conviction"...

... and right now an "over parking" ticket looks good.

After she finished her career with these loses ... Baltimore can get a good one.

Like Rodney King, the DOJ will come in an save "her bacon."

Problem is ... the Federal jury panel will have a different "look to it."

[nevergaveitathought]

the judge placed a gag order on the trial participants, a dubious one on the jurors

I am not sure, but I had an inkling the vote was 11 to 1 for acquittal?

has anyone heard anything?

the last time I was in Baltimore was a couple of days before 9-11

flew out of the northeast on a flight that two days later was hi-jacked

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

You are only referring to criminal and not civil culpability, correct?

That's the discussion isn't it.... criminal?

In civil liability the vicarious liability of the supervisor/owner must be based upon "actual notice" or "imputed notice" by failing a "duty to know"!

It is my understanding the State was trying to prove criminal responsibility for the violation of a departmental policy on the lesser count. I think that would not pass the smell test on appeal .... and particularly if the "policy" was new and there was no way of proving Porter knew of the policy change.....and/or the policy was "vague," which so many are.

Again, one might get civil liability on policy violations, but that's moot, since the City settled with Freddie's family .... we haven't been shown the details of the settlement .... of which I'm aware ... so I'm not sure what "dog" the family's attorney has in this criminal hunt other than getting more publicity.

He is certainly trying to support the convictions. Hopefully there's a confidentiality agreement forbidding him.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, one might get civil liability on policy violations, but that's moot, since the City settled with Freddie's family .... we haven't been shown the details of the settlement .... of which I'm aware ... so I'm not sure what "dog" the family's attorney has in this criminal hunt other than getting more publicity.

is the city sure that all of Freddie's possible babies or baby mommas were signed up?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

is the city sure that all of Freddie's possible babies or baby mommas were signed up?

Hopefully the deal was kissed with a court order based on a "class action" type notice.

"'Claim now or forever hold your "mouth piece"!"

The way the other shit has run around there, I doubt they gave it a "second thought"!

Probably didn't give it a "first" one either!

Free money!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Hopefully the deal was kissed with a court order based on a "class action" type notice.

"'Claim now or forever hold your "mouth piece"!"

The way the other shit has run around there, I doubt they gave it a "second thought"!

Probably didn't give it a "first" one either!

Free money!

does notice count for someone under 18?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

does notice count for someone under 18?

I'm not intimately acquainted with Maryland law, but the generally accepted process for those "under 18" (if that means someone who doesn't have the legal capacity of an adult) is for the Court to appoint a "guardian ad litem" to represent the interests of the "incapacitated" person ("under 18") to review the facts and the law regarding the settlement and then report to the Court who approves the settlement that it is an acceptable and appropriate settlement for the "under 18" person .. given the THEN facts and law, or that it is NOT, which is not necessarily binding upon the Court. In other words ... the Court in that instance has the last word.

As an aside, hopefully that portion of the funds attributable to the "under 18" -year-olds is separated into a trust fund to be administered with judicial oversight so the leeches can't run off with the money.

I realize that that is not a "yes or no" answer, but sometimes that kind of an answer just won't cut it. But if those i's are dotted and t's crossed ... yes.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not intimately acquainted with Maryland law, but the generally accepted process for those "under 18" (if that means someone who doesn't have the legal capacity of an adult) is for the Court to appoint a "guardian ad litem" to represent the interests of the "incapacitated" person ("under 18") to review the facts and the law regarding the settlement and then report to the Court who approves the settlement that it is an acceptable and appropriate settlement for the "under 18" person .. given the THEN facts and law, or that it is NOT, which is not necessarily binding upon the Court. In other words ... the Court in that instance has the last word.

As an aside, hopefully that portion of the funds attributable to the "under 18" -year-olds is separated into a trust fund to be administered with judicial oversight so the leeches can't run off with the money.

I realize that that is not a "yes or no" answer, but sometimes that kind of an answer just won't cut it. But if those i's are dotted and t's crossed ... yes.

my point, which was tongue in cheek for the most part, was that children (unknown) of freddie's may come out of the woodwork at a later date

and sue for wrongful death

and any court notice may not apply nor would there have been any appointment of an attorney ad litem nor any trust arrangement as they weren't contemplated

but if there can be a court order that seals off all future comers, so be it

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

my point, which was tongue in cheek for the most part, was that children (unknown) of freddie's may come out of the woodwork at a later date

and sue for wrongful death

and any court notice may not apply nor would there have been any appointment of an attorney ad litem nor any trust arrangement as they weren't contemplated

but if there can be a court order that seals off all future comers, so be it

Well, at least they have "Freddie's" DNA.

And there is a "cure" for those "hiding" in the woodwork .... the "unknowns" get an appointed "attorney ad litem" who is tasked with the responsibility of publicizing sufficiently the existence of the "pot of gold" awaiting their emergence from the wooden womb ..... to make a claim for a piece of the action. If none emerge then there claims (or potential claims) are time barred after the statutory period for them to assert their spurious claim has expired. The "attorney ad litem" reports to the Court that no one appeared, and the Court dutifully memorializes the nonappearance in the FINAL JUDGMENT approving the settlement.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Well, at least they have "Freddie's" DNA.

And there is a "cure" for those "hiding" in the woodwork .... .

a two year old wouldn't be able to comply readily and his mother may not know or care who the dad was

I had some vague impression in the back of my mind that there was a period of time, perhaps a two year window after reaching majority, to address some wrong done you or assert some claim arising while you were of minority

but that might be texas and even if texas may not apply in any case

its just a theoretical exercise I suppose

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

a two year old wouldn't be able to comply readily and his mother may not know or care who the dad was ...

I had some vague impression ......

Since we should all practice "safe sex" that is the best argument for getting snipped ... in Texas there is what amounts to be a 19 year statute of limitations on "support" claims created by some inadvertent failure to "get in the rhythm."

In an attempt to "finally resolve" settlements the procedure I suggested is employed and I "assume" in some jurisdictions there would be a process with a HIGH burden of proof to demonstrate the "publicity" surrounding the attempt to resolve ALL CLAIMS didn't adequately comply in a manner that was reasonably satisfactory to meet Due Process standards.

Not to get too far off into the weeds ... "an issue" on damages is to be able to prove that taking Freddie's life deprived junior of "support" for the period of his childhood .... and that would be part of the burden of proof to get $$$.

From what I've read of "Freddie" he was hardly a pot at the end of the rainbow!