There's a question that lingers over Baltimore and the alleged murder of Freddie Gray: exactly how was Gray's spine or spinal cord "80% severed"? Different people interpret the videos differently. Should there be consideration of whether a torture technique that could be called the "Baltimore Twist" was involved?
According to the Wikipedia article "Death of Freddie Gray" -
A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck, subsequent to which most witnesses contemporaneously commented that he "couldn't walk", "can't use his legs", and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that". Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."
Viewers of relevant video interviewed by Mister Charlie disagreed with the interpretation of Commissioner Batts that Gray "climbed into the van on his own." What appears to Mister Charlie to be most relevant to the question of the "80% severed" spine is the "one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck" along with the "couldn't walk" and "can't use his legs" plus "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that." Should not prosecutors investigate whether the testimony (along with the medical and pathological reports) is evidence of a type or technique of torture consisting of attempting to twist the head off a victim's torso - a technique that hereafter could be termed "the Baltimore twist."
Side-by-side with the many articles on the Freddie Gray murder, consider this article on Chicago's recently enacted ordinance granting reparations to police torture survivors. (See, story from the Chicago Reporter republished by truth-out, 7 May 2015.) link to truth-out
From the Chicago Reporter story: "The measure draws from the United Nations Convention against Torture and human rights practices around the world, especially in nations that overcame the legacy of violent, repressive regimes."
But why could not the Chicago ordinance have been based directly on statute law detailing specific acts of torture? Such law could rely on the substantial evidence available on techniques of torture and their known debilitating results in the torture manual(s) used over time in the organization unofficially known as the 'School of Torture' (formerly "School of the Americas") operated under the Special Operations Command at Fort Benning, Georgia. Of course, law-makers would have to overcome the hurdle that all those manuals are undoubtedly highly classified. But there are plenty of other torture manuals that could be consulted in framing a torture statute (potentially available though the CIA and going back to postwar investigations of the Nazi Third Reich regime.)
Such a statute could define the techniques that are tantamount to felonious torture. Law-makers could go beyond anti-discrimination law and target torture used by anyone or, especially, any gang or police group - whether allegedly politically or racially motivated, and regardless of the demographic group with which victims or perpetrators may be identified. I emphasize "any gang or police group" because horrible acts are not perpetrated only by police but are too often perpetrated by criminal gangs - not infrequently with racist motivations, against whites as well as against blacks. It's really a question of crimes against humanity, which should be punishable by law regardless of connections with governmental agencies or other surrounding circumstances.
I am suggesting that torture statutes are badly needed in all jurisdictions in the USA as well as in Federal law. I am also suggesting that among the other hang-overs that the Obama administration has inherited from the 'Cheney' administration is the whole movement toward the legalization of torture supposedly based on the officially accepted 9-11 narrative and the subsequent 'War on Terror'. All this should be subject to serious investigation by congressional committees. I recall that some of the best investigations and condemnations of torture were provided back around 2008 or earlier by well-respected traditional (non-neocon) Republicans.
I think back to the notorious case of a California rapist who was released a few years after conviction for a rape that included cutting off both arms of the victim. (The big news story was that the criminal was rehabilitated and released on parole but could not find a community in California that would accept him.) That crime was considered much more lightly than if the victim had been murdered after the rape. To my mind, there are many crimes amounting to torture (of various degrees of severity), including some that could and should be punished as severely as murder.
I also suggest that this country is long past a point at which torture must be reconsidered after the white-washing it received during the 'Cheney' administration. There were prominent non-neocon Republicans who joined in condemning the entire justification-of-torture movement of Cheney and others. Is it just that the American public would rather not look at the truth?