Re: Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide
Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then? That determination does not say WHO is responsible, nor does it require the DA pursue criminal charges against anyone. The heirs of the deceased are free to use this in their civil suit should they choose, but no one can compel the DA to prosecute anyone at all. Ergo, with regards to a criminal matter, this is much ado about nothing.
Re: Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide
"Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then?"
Then we have a chance to change something. If we can get them to change how they restrain people it could save lives.
One of the things that killed him was restraint. They all knew better than to strap a person with his injuries onto a medical backboard in the prone position, but they did. Even after he told them, "I can't breathe." Why? Well, they are not talking and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release. The public didn't read the autopsy. But everyone and their dog read the press release.
They have a policy that says they should try to avoid forceful prone restraint. Maybe it should say don't ever put someone in that position.
Your question almost sounds like you are discounting the value of truthfulness. When we get the truth, THEN we can go in the right direction. The truth affects things we don't even see or know. It has it's own value.
Re: Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide
Quote:
Quoting
huntsab
"Let's assume that the ME did rule it a "homicide." What then?"
Then we have a chance to change something. If we can get them to change how they restrain people it could save lives.
That's a policy issue.
In general, the police restrain people in a manner that is safe for them, first, and safe for the prisoner, second. Since I am not sure what case you are talking about, I can't say, specifically, whether this is a matter of positional asphyxia or something else.
Quote:
One of the things that killed him was restraint. They all knew better than to strap a person with his injuries onto a medical backboard in the prone position, but they did.
Who is "all?" Since you mentioned a backboard, I assume there were medical personnel involved. If so, then they would also have had a say in what was done and how the person might have been restrained. The police generally do not "strap" people to a backboard - medical staff will. A person is "strapped" down to prevent movement so as to avoid further injury. Is someone alleging that the medics killed him?
And, if strapped down and he died due to error, even if a "homicide" it is not likely to be criminal.
Quote:
Even after he told them, "I can't breathe." Why? Well, they are not talking and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release. The public didn't read the autopsy. But everyone and their dog read the press release.
I'm sure the family and their civil attorney can read the autopsy and they can sue whoever they think is at fault and have a court decide who is liable.
Quote:
They have a policy that says they should try to avoid forceful prone restraint. Maybe it should say don't ever put someone in that position.
It is poor policy to say "never" or "always" in matters that involve safety because it puts officers into potentially unsafe situations.
For instance, one department I worked for said you could not use flashlights as weapons. Well, one deputy was surprised when a suspect drew a gun from a backpack and she had her flashlight in her hand so she clubbed him int he head which allowed her to step clear and for her and her partner to draw down and engage him in a gunfight. The suspect died and the deputy faced discipline for hitting him with a flashlight. She would have been within policy to be shot and killed, but outside of policy to have saved her life.
In another instance, a juvenile told an off duty officer, "I'm going to waste you" (or words to that effect) and reached into his jacket. The deputy drew a gun and told the kid to freeze, but the kid threatened the officer again and drew an object that appeared to be a gun from beneath a jacket. Not wanting to kill the kid, the officer struck him with the pistol and knocked him down and disarmed him (it was a pipe and not a gun). But, because he "pistol-whipped" the kid, he was given days on the beach. Had the officer shot and killed the kid, he'd be in policy. Because he spared the kid's life, he suffered a month off without pay.
The point being that in those days policies were often contradictory and inflexible even to the point of making no sense. Over the last 20 years policies have evolved to encourage or discourage, or to indicate that something was to be done or not done "generally" but rarely "always" or "never."
Quote:
Your question almost sounds like you are discounting the value of truthfulness. When we get the truth, THEN we can go in the right direction. The truth affects things we don't even see or know. It has it's own value.
The "truth" doesn't change what happens. If it IS a homicide, what then? Homicide is NOT synonymous with a CRIME, and does NOT require the DA to identify a person to charge with a crime even if it might be.
Re: Is a Medical Examiner's Testimony Enough to Establish Homicide
Quote:
Quoting
huntsab
Why? Well, they are not talking
They are being or about to be sued. Of course they are going to keep their mouths shut.
Quote:
Quoting
huntsab
and besides it was his enlarged heart that killed him because the assistant DA said so in a press release.
That right there is what PTPD22 was talking about. He had a pre-existing condition that became exacerbated (people with large hearts don't always take well to serious physical exertion) during the police encounter. As a result of that, he passed away. It was a homicide in that it was caused by another person but likely not criminal.
Did the ME identify the cause of the death? Did the ME attribute the death in any way to his heart condition? I'm betting he included it as a contributory factor at the least.
As for the DA, it's called prosecutorial discretion. That is how any court is going to view it unless you can come up with solid evidence that he is declining to press charges only to protect the officers and paramedics/emts involved. Cause as Carl indicated, the medical personnel would share blame for this as well.