bodily thrown into the bolt that made the impression in his head - first report I read said that was on the back door.

Do physics work backwards there?

It wasn't a bolt on the back door.

Or perhaps the van was moving backwards when it slowed down.

Perhaps there were several injuries--one to his head, one to his neck.

Maybe the reporter didn't use the right word. I would have just said "accelerated", which to my mind covers the gamut--speed up, slow down, change direction.

Trial by media is fraught with risk and peril.

(Please not that I'm not a reporter, as you can tell by my using "fraught" to mean "filled" or "burdened" and therefore view utterances like "Trial by media is fraught" as something only an uneducated dork would say ... but I repeat myself. The word's obviously somehow related to "freight".)

It could also have been murder. Now it is just a bunch of people trying to reach for excuses and lies, instead of taking responsibility.

Murdering, lying police appear to be just about as common as inept reporting.

which would bring the door forward into his inertially still skull.

I would see that as a possible means to his death.

It's not an excuse, to me, it's still murder if the harmful intent is proven.

would just sit there - friction would slow it.

I get your point, of course, but I think what happened in the back of that van had nothing to do with it starting and stopping.

Sitting near the driver, on the bench along the inside of a large van, if the driver floors it, that passenger will meet the rear door (and any bolt head attached to it) with much force. That passenger will remain pretty much still as the bench slides beneath him.

What happened could have had everything to do with starting, stopping, and turning.

"Rough ride", indeed.

If the officers deliberately neglected to fasten a seat belt around him, that should be good enough for a murder charge.

And, if deliberate, the prosecutor should be able to search the records and find other victims of "rough ride" and establish a pattern.

I could be wrong (probably am) but in reading yours it sounds like they took the seat out, asked him to hop into the passenger side and stand there while they floored it. Possible, sure, but not what happened.

That's the defense the police use - nearly every conceivable scenario except the one that is the most simple to explain, and most likely. And the one which shows them as the most culpable.

But as you say, the pattern tells the tale.

away from the front.

I could be wrong (probably am) but in reading yours it sounds like they took the seat out, asked him to hop into the passenger side and stand there while they floored it.

That's the defense the police use - nearly every conceivable scenario except the one that is the most simple to explain, and most likely. And the one which shows them as the most culpable.

But as you say, the pattern tells the tale.

No doubt, many simpletons are unaware vehicles may be driven in reverse as well as forward-- which is I believe, part and parcel of physics, regardless of where one is.

http://bluenationreview.com/a-rough-ride-is-not-an-accident-it-is-a-weapon

A “Rough Ride” is Not an Accident. It is a Weapon.

JUSTICE
JOHN PAUL BRAMMER MAY 1, 2015

What do you think of when you hear the words “rough ride?”

- snip -

It means being handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van with a floor-to-ceiling steel interior. It means being shackled at the ankles and not being secured with a seatbelt as a police officer takes you on a hard-braking, high-speed ride. There is a clear intent to do harm.

Stray dogs on the street are assured greater safety when being taken to the local animal shelter.
As the New York Times reports, these tactics are well known in some communities. In Baltimore, they are called “rough rides.” In Philadelphia, they are called “nickel rides,” which, according to the article, is a “reference to old-time amusement park rides that cost five cents.”
By design, these “rough rides” exist to do damage while keeping officers’ hands off of the arrested. Its effectiveness as a tactic to absolve blame is now being tested as the police department blames Freddie Gray’s death on a bolt in the van.

MORE

but it's calling breaking for Fifi.

It was a sadistic way to kill a person, it was torture, and he died in unspeakable agony.

But for many lack of evidence is the best evidence of a cover-up, with denial of a cover-up being explicit confirmation.

some critics of the prosecution think it validates everything they have been saying

but if Freddie keeps moving around, even after being cuffed and shackled, it seems like he should have been belted in

and the claimed negligence was that he wasn't.

One side said "intentional infliction of fatal injury" to exacerbate the issue.

One side said "no, the injury wasn't intentional."

"Rough ride" came along, which puts it in the category of "intentional accident." Sort of "it's an accident, but we fudged the probabilities."

Now it's going to be up to the jury to decide on the basis of the evidence accepted in court if the accident was half-planned and you get some sort of low-grade homicide, or if it was largely unforeseen but foreseeable and you get manslaughter or if it is going to be deemed just a violation of police procedure. No need for all 6 police to get the same sentence in this, either.

I'm fairly confident that unless they all get the same sentence at least some of those who have them already judged will be irate at not being validated.

Murder.

They should spend significant time in jail for this, but the prosecutor has a tremendously hard fight ahead of them.

I had a herniated cervical disk. It was the worst pain I've ever known, and I've gone through childbirth twice. There is nothing worse, and this poor man died in the most horrible agony I can imagine.

"grounded" on concrete sidewalk, & piled on his back and neck to 'restrain' him before 2 officers had to prop him up to "walk" him to the van for another, Police punishment rough ride.