Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The shooting of the 12 year old is being ruled as a homicide:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/justice/cleveland-tamir-rice/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Well.....kinda not surprised by this decision.

The Pessimist in me says that this is a knee jerk placation due to current events and we will have the shambles of a case followed by whatever decision the family and their supporters think is wrong.

S.O.P with the family filing a lawsuit against the officers too.

Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is

It is only trouble if you woefully misunderstand the difference between a coroners report and a criminal charge. There is nothing new or interesting here beyond the silly outrage some are expressing.

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Huh? It's not a homicide VERDICT. The family filed a lawsuit against someone. Now...what would you accuse him of? Accidental manslaughter? Even if he is completely innocent and proven not guilty, it's still treated as a homicide case.

Imagine you get robbed at night by a guy with a knife. You disarm him, but kill him in self-defense. If his family would now want to file a lawsuit against you, it would be a homicide lawsuit. You would go out as a free man, free of any charges, but you just went through a homicide lawsuit nevertheless.

Homicide as a coroner finding means 'this person died due to the actions of another person', which is every non-self inflicted gun death.

Totally misread the article.

Surely Homicide charges will be next? Or should I still be pessimistic on that score?

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Is that wrong? Do you think we should have killing citizens as part of a job and NOT scrutinize over it any time it's used?

Well considering that the Eric Garner case was ruled a homocide by the coroner, and that that didn't lead to any charges, I would say that the cop in this case is most likely in the clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Uhm...yeah...what else would you have it ruled as? Someone was killed with intent, that's homicide. That's all that it means.

Trouble is, the effect it will possibly have on future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

That depends on whether the Grand Jury decides that they should go on trial, surely?

niv-mizzet wrote:
n future cases where a cop has a gun pulled on him and he has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death. Is the cop going to have to go on trial every time?

Is that wrong? Do you think we should have killing citizens as part of a job and NOT scrutinize over it any time it's used?

Killing civilians is indeed part of any cop's job as "civilian" also includes every non-military personnel with any sort of weapon.

Big ups for the coroner for clarifying that it was a homicide, though! CSI difficulty level

The thread title has it right.

The cop involved was thrown to the mob, this was not a fair and justifiable action, but a knee jerk responce to a number of unfortunate deaths at police hands. I support his assumption that a fake gun is to be treated as a real gun unless proven otherwise.

However cases where people are held in chokeholds until they die are beihng linked to this case politically, if not judicially.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Imagine you get robbed at night by a guy with a knife. You disarm him, but kill him in self-defense. If his family would now want to file a lawsuit against you, it would be a homicide lawsuit. You would go out as a free man, free of any charges, but you just went through a homicide lawsuit nevertheless.

However the officer need not even have to go through this proceeding.

He has the responsibility to carry and use a firearm in public service. Someone brandished a gun in public and he was forced to respond with lethal force.
Ruling that a standard police lawful use of a firearm is a categorisable as homicide is as disingenuous as categorising deaths in combat as homicide also.

People die as a result of being shot. Some deaths are negligent or criminal. Some die as a result of being shot be state employees acting under lawful orders or in the lawfuo pursuit of peacekeeping duties. They shouldn't be pissed on and second guessed at every turn.

Why wouldn't it be homicide? Any time a person kills another person it's a homicide, as far as I know. Intent doesn't matter either, and homicide isn't a charge. Even if a shooting is ruled self defense and totally justifiable, it would still be homicide.

 Hordini wrote:
Why wouldn't it be homicide? Any time a person kills another person it's a homicide, as far as I know. Intent doesn't matter either, and homicide isn't a charge. Even if a shooting is ruled self defense and totally justifiable, it would still be homicide.

Because there is no homicide ruling for lawful killings.

its homicide biologically, but not legally.

By what you are saying death row executions are homicides, combat deaths are homicides and so is going after Bin Laden. You dont get judicial rulings on these as a matter of course. The problem is not the nature of the ruling, its having a ruling on this issue to begin with, it opens procedures rather than closes them.

 Orlanth wrote:
The thread title has it right.

The cop involved was thrown to the mob, this was not a fair and justifiable action, but a knee jerk responce to a number of unfortunate deaths at police hands. I support his assumption that a fake gun is to be treated as a real gun unless proven otherwise.

However cases where people are held in chokeholds until they die are beihng linked to this case politically, if not judicially.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Imagine you get robbed at night by a guy with a knife. You disarm him, but kill him in self-defense. If his family would now want to file a lawsuit against you, it would be a homicide lawsuit. You would go out as a free man, free of any charges, but you just went through a homicide lawsuit nevertheless.

However the officer need not even have to go through this proceeding.

He has the responsibility to carry and use a firearm in public service. Someone brandished a gun in public and he was forced to respond with lethal force.
Ruling that a standard police lawful use of a firearm is a categorisable as homicide is as disingenuous as categorising deaths in combat as homicide also.

People die as a result of being shot. Some deaths are negligent or criminal. Some die as a result of being shot be state employees acting under lawful orders or in the lawfuo pursuit of peacekeeping duties. They shouldn't be pissed on and second guessed at every turn.

I hate to say it, but the recent slew of cases involving police is totally racially motivated. The slogan "Black lives matter", was changed by a law school professor to "All lives matter", and she was crucified.

Just to refresh people's memory on a truly heinous act by the police that disappeared without a comparative ripple in the press, I give you Kelly Thompson. Just be warned, the video is extremely disturbing:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IntxCA3sA


No big letters in that case ruling it a homicide.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why wouldn't it be homicide? Any time a person kills another person it's a homicide, as far as I know. Intent doesn't matter either, and homicide isn't a charge. Even if a shooting is ruled self defense and totally justifiable, it would still be homicide.

Because there is no homicide ruling for lawful killings.

its homicide biologically, but not legally.

By what you are saying death row executions are homicides, combat deaths are homicides and so is going after Bin Laden. You dont get judicial rulings on these as a matter of course. The problem is not the nature of the ruling, its having a ruling on this issue to begin with, it opens procedures rather than closes them.

Is the coroner's report a judicial ruling? As far as I know it isn't, but I could be wrong. I thought that in cases like this it would be considered justifiable homicide? There can be non-criminal homicide rulings. And yes, technically all the things you listed would be homicides, but there usually aren't investigations into those sorts of things because they are by their nature considered justified.

Michael Brown died of homicide, NYC guy died of homicide, this kid died of homicide.

Nothing new here other that sensational news baiting.

There does seem to be varying definitions of the word.

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

The killing of one human being by another human being.

The first definition would be inflammatory in this case. The second wouldn't.

I think part of the problem is a lot of people read homicide and think "murder," when that isn't necessarily accurate. As far as I know the coroner doesn't really have the capability or the responsibility to determine whether or not a killing was lawful or not, only what the cause was.

 djones520 wrote:
There does seem to be varying definitions of the word.

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

The killing of one human being by another human being.

The first definition would be inflammatory in this case. The second wouldn't.

Fortunately, we have context available and since the context is a coronist's report, we know what kind of homicide we're talking of

 djones520 wrote:
There does seem to be varying definitions of the word.

the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.

The killing of one human being by another human being.

The first definition would be inflammatory in this case. The second wouldn't.

At minimum there are likely 50 different definitions I would imagine.

So this is a case of nothing to see here?

Personally I think the authorities and their agents should be put on trial when they kill citizens.

Any other course of action would supine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I think the authorities and their agents should be put on trial when they kill citizens.

Any other course of action would supine.

I'd rather the normal course of law be followed. Evidence gathered, a prosecutor examines it, determines if charges should be pressed, then maybe go to trial.

I use the term "trial" loosely to denote the full process of the law as laid out in your post.

To try the merits of the case, in other words.

The danger of course is that the police are in charge of gathering evidence, etc, and might be led by a misapprehension of their loyalty to favour their own personnel.

Wow, you guys need to learn the difference between 'criminal procedures' and 'civil procedures'

Take a look, then cringe by what you've posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_procedure

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Any other course of action would supine.

I'm not sure bringing werewolves into it would help tbh.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Any other course of action would supine.

I'm not sure bringing werewolves into it would help tbh.

???

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Any other course of action would supine.

I'm not sure bringing werewolves into it would help tbh.

I think you're confusing supine with lupine.

djones520 wasn't getting it. Just trying to help a brotha out.