The difference is the disparity of force between 4 able bodied people and one apparently unarmed thief and the level of threat he could have presented to them.Hoi Polloi wrote:He was breaking into their personal property at night. Aren't they justified to use deadly force?
It says that two of them were pinning him to the ground when police arrived. It doesn't say they were still beating the unconscious man.
How is this different from shooting him until he stops?
There is a possibility that intentional strikes may not have caused the death.Hoi Polloi wrote:Someone privately pointed out that it happened at 2 PM. I don't know why I thought it was night.
The article jumps from guy breaking into the car to the police arriving to find two men holding him (not hitting him) and him being unconscious. While they very well might have used excessive force well past the time any threat he posed passed, I don't recall reading any proof of that in the article.
Wouldn't bother me if they ordered autopsies for any thieving criminals caught live as well.An autopsy for the dead man has been ordered.
Interesting development, Excaliber. Reinforces waiting a bit before making snap judgments, I reckon.Excaliber wrote:The latest news story indicates that investigators are now leaning toward the unintended compressional asphyxia theory I suggested earlier. No charges have been filed so far after initial statements and a security camera video were reviewed. Details here.
I came to this thread late, but even before reading all the way through it, I was prepared to say that there may well have been other medical issues in play here. If the thief was a drug user and heavy smoker, he might have suffocated more easily than a normally healthy male. There are all sorts of factors that can confuse even the knowledgeable as to whether or not this was excessive force.His exact cause of death has not been officially determined since pathologists are still waiting for toxicology test results to see if he had any drugs or alcohol in his system, Oxspring said.
It may be that the actions of the citizens were incidental to the reason the suspect died, in which case neither murder nor any other form of homicide charge would be appropriate.The Annoyed Man wrote:Quoting the article that Excaliber linked to:I came to this thread late, but even before reading all the way through it, I was prepared to say that there may well have been other medical issues in play here. If the thief was a drug user and heavy smoker, he might have suffocated more easily than a normally healthy male. There are all sorts of factors that can confuse even the knowledgeable as to whether or not this was excessive force.His exact cause of death has not been officially determined since pathologists are still waiting for toxicology test results to see if he had any drugs or alcohol in his system, Oxspring said.
Just my opinion, but my guess is that the 4 guys did not set out to kill him. They were, after all, detaining him, presumably for the police who had been called; but they did also engage in a bit of "get some," because it doesn't seem like 4 grown and healthy men would need to repeatedly kick and punch someone who was down, even if on some level he deserved it, if detaining him for the police was the stated goal.
I don't think this rises to the level of murder, but it certainly looks like a manslaughter charge is imminent. I think the outcome is going to depend on whether their "peers" in the jury sympathize more with the thief than with the the accused.... ....OJ Simpson, and all that....