Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):
So you think this was somewhat comparable to murder/manslaughter?

Murder, only in the case someone died.  2nd degree manslaughter, as I mentioned before, BL, yes, it's comparable.  Based on what I know (which isn't every piece of evidence, obviously), I wouldn't want to charge him with 2nd degree manslaughter. 

Are you upset I didn't use more words after the word "manslaughter"? You can look at the rest of the definition.

I'm not upset at all.

Do you think he would have been convicted by a jury?  

It's obviously hard to say. It requires first the DA wanting the police officer to suffer some form of punishment, and believing that a crime was committed. My guess, if that occurred, would be yes, he'd be convicted.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:19:00 AM (view original):
It makes sense only if you believe the ME was correct in calling the death a homicide.

The CDC's handbook for MEs and Coroners on death registration notes that the National Association of Medical Examiners uses the following definition (page 29):

Homicide — "occurs when death results from ..." an injury or poisoning or from "...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death.  Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide."

The Medical Examiner's job is only to define cause of death.  It's their not their job to determine intent of other parties involved or the events that led up to the person's death.  They only provide the forensic evidence that is then used by investigators, prosecutors, and the legal system to determine if a criminal act has been committed.

Nobody said anything about intent.  Someone died because of homicide.  Homicide is a criminal act.

EDIT: is a criminal act based on NYS definition, and not based on tec's definition, or the legal-dictionary .com definition.  

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:19:00 AM (view original):
It makes sense only if you believe the ME was correct in calling the death a homicide.

The CDC's handbook for MEs and Coroners on death registration notes that the National Association of Medical Examiners uses the following definition (page 29):

Homicide — "occurs when death results from ..." an injury or poisoning or from "...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death.  Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide."

The Medical Examiner's job is only to define cause of death.  It's their not their job to determine intent of other parties involved or the events that led up to the person's death.  They only provide the forensic evidence that is then used by investigators, prosecutors, and the legal system to determine if a criminal act has been committed.

Nobody said anything about intent.  Someone died because of homicide.  Homicide is a criminal act.

EDIT: is a criminal act based on NYS definition, and not based on tec's definition, or the legal-dictionary .com definition.  

Is there a distinction between the medical definition of homicide and the legal definition of homicide in NYS?

Does it make sense to you that an ME in NYS (or anywhere) would (or should) have the authority or ability to determine criminal act versus non-criminal act when determining the cause of death when examining a body?  Wouldn't/shouldn't that be within the domain of the police or the DA's office, and the legal system?

Does NYS recognize the concept of "justifiable homicide"?  If so, is "justifiable homicide" a criminal act in NYS?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/5/2014 10:56:00 AM (view original):
How is it not?  

Anyway, I'll get to the point.  Joe Average would see the video.   He'd see a cop that perhaps acted too quickly but they'd size up the suspect.  He'd recognize that he didn't want to cooperate.  He'd put himself in the cops shoes.  And he'd determine that acting too quickly in that situation was better than acting too slowly.   And he'd decide that the suspect's death was an unfortunate accident. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 10:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 12/5/2014 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 10:19:00 AM (view original):
It makes sense only if you believe the ME was correct in calling the death a homicide.

The CDC's handbook for MEs and Coroners on death registration notes that the National Association of Medical Examiners uses the following definition (page 29):

Homicide — "occurs when death results from ..." an injury or poisoning or from "...a volitional act committed by another person to cause fear, harm, or death.  Intent to cause death is a common element but is not required for classification as homicide."

The Medical Examiner's job is only to define cause of death.  It's their not their job to determine intent of other parties involved or the events that led up to the person's death.  They only provide the forensic evidence that is then used by investigators, prosecutors, and the legal system to determine if a criminal act has been committed.

Nobody said anything about intent.  Someone died because of homicide.  Homicide is a criminal act.

EDIT: is a criminal act based on NYS definition, and not based on tec's definition, or the legal-dictionary .com definition.  

Is there a distinction between the medical definition of homicide and the legal definition of homicide in NYS?

Does it make sense to you that an ME in NYS (or anywhere) would (or should) have the authority or ability to determine criminal act versus non-criminal act when determining the cause of death when examining a body?  Wouldn't/shouldn't that be within the domain of the police or the DA's office, and the legal system?

Does NYS recognize the concept of "justifiable homicide"?  If so, is "justifiable homicide" a criminal act in NYS?

I know that the coroner called this act a homicide. I know that when you refer to a homicide in the NYS legal system, it means a criminal act. When that information doesn't result in an indictment at the very least, that's insane. 

The coroner, based on your info and definition, determined that Garner died because the officer committed an act to cause harm. It's not death, obviously, and it wasn't fear. So it has to cause harm. When your goal is to cause harm because a man you're trying to arrest a man who raised his hands in the air and said "don't touch me" then something's wrong. When that person dies, it sounds criminal. And the NYS legal system definition agrees.

If the defense wants to refer to the homicide as "justifiable" then that's the defense's job.  But they didn't have to do that, because there was no indictment. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:37:00 AM (view original):
I'm just trying to understand why you're so fixated on the idea that there's no reasonable chance that a crime occurred, based on the information given to you.

I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a crime occurred.  And I have not offered a single opinion in this thread as to whether one did or not.

I'm just questioning your line of argument which seems to imply that the ME's noted cause of death as "homicide" inherently implies that a criminal act took place.  That's not the ME's job.  His/her job is to only determine the cause of death.  The determination of "criminal act" is made by the police, the DA's office, and the legal system.  Real life isn't a Patricia Cornwall novel.

It seems to me that there is a generally accepted medical definition of "homicide", and a NYS legal statute definition of "homicide".  To me, they are not necessarily the same thing.  Seeing that the ME is not a part of the legal system, I'm not sure why you are assuming that he/she is bound to use the legal definition of homicide when filling out a death certificate.

Posted by burnsy483 on 12/5/2014 11:36:00 AM (view original):
You're the one finding different definitions for the word "homicide." You found one you liked, and when I examine that definition, you're getting upset. The coroner determined that the cop committed an act to cause harm to a person (an act that the NYPD doesn't allow) with his arms raised, showed no threat, with 3 other cops around him. After 2 seconds of trying to arrest him. That's excessive. And that excessive act caused a death. 

The lack of an idictment seems to indicate that others don't share your view of "excessive".  

I'm in that group.