Tale of two traumas
When this guy died of blunt force trauma, an autopsy revealed that it was an "accident."
When this guy died of blunt force trauma, an autopsy revealed that it was a "homicide."
Amazing what autopsies can tell you.
| Posted at 12:36 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (4)
The One True b!x points out that the "manner of death" determination does not normally include intent and motive in its findings.
Except, y'know, when there are other factors (like protecting the police) involved, perhaps.
Posted by Brian | September 25, 2006 1:28 PM
It would be interesting to know how "accident" and "homicide" are supposed to be defined for these purposes. If "accident" means anything short of "killed by humans with intent to kill" -- which was the M.E.'s explanation of the finding on Chasse -- then it's hard to say that the other guy's death wasn't "accidental." Maybe the person who killed victim no. 2 also just meant to hurt him or subdue him.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 25, 2006 1:30 PM
I have a resist arrest trial tomorrow with Officer Humphries as the critical state witness my client "resisted." Defense all along has been excessive force. I doubt we'll have to use the defense, since paid leave probably gets one out of testifying in court.
Cases with Multnomah County Sheriff Deputy Green are all getting dumped, and now maybe Officer Humphries cases will be dumped too. It must be hard to prosecute when law enforcement can't restrain itself.
Posted by eric | September 25, 2006 4:16 PM
It would be interesting to know how "accident" and "homicide" are supposed to be defined for these purposes.
Well, as near as I can tell, the terms for the medical examiner parallel those for a jury of inquest.
ORS 146, which includes the law governing both medical examiners and inquest juries (both of which are charged with determining manner of death), defines "manner of death" as "the designation of the probable mode of production of the cause of death, including natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal, legal intervention or undetermined.".
And, as people may recall, the inquest jury in the James Jahar Perez case did not have to find any sort of "murderous intent" on the part of the officers involved in order to return their determination that, for manner of death purposes, it was a homicide.
There was a KATU report at that time which I cited on Communique which said this: "A ruling of homicide does not imply wrongdoing, it only means James Perez died as a direct result of Portland police officer Jason Sery's action."
Emphasis added because I think that's part of the answer to your question.
Posted by b!X | September 26, 2006 12:38 AM