quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You need to look up the definition of "murder."

If it's not intentional, it's not murder.  Intent is one of the necessary elements of murder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

killing an unarmed man is "murder" regardless if it is intentional or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Shouldn't cost them anything. The grandfather attacked a sworn officer, a felony, while the officer was attempting stop the abuse of a child, a few more felonies, and the officers used non lethal force and didn't initially resort to batons and the like. The grandfather's cause of death is almost certainly going to be drug related although a bum ticker is an outside possibility.

Juries don't often decide in favor of the estate of a guy abusing his child when it sues the peace officers that were trying to save the child.

well it is going ot be interesting and we will have to keep an eye on it,   killing an unarmed man is "murder" regardless if it is intentional or not.

THe archilles heel here is that the man from what i could tell had no weapon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nyrisa


Oh, please......visualize what was happening. The man had the child by the neck, choking her. A 3 year old's neck is fragile, and can easily be broken by a grown man's hands, and her trachea is even more fragile and does not take much pressure to crush. The man would not release the child, so he was stunned. He still did not release her, so he was stunned again. Are two officers and a crazed man supposed to play tug of war with this girl's neck, until gentle reasoning and persuasive entreaties convince the man to loosen his choke hold on her throat? The officers had seconds only to save this girl's life, if he had her by the throat. A stun gun is not intended as lethal force.....but if someone has an underlying medical condition that would react poorly to stunning, and elects to choke a child anyway, then I can honestly say he has only himself to blame. I will ALWAYS support the decision to protect the child.

Here is a description of the incident:
*********

A bed was pushed up against the bedroom door but officers were able to push it open a few inches, allowing one to peer inside and see that 49-year-old Ronald Marquez was clutching his bloodied granddaughter, who was crying in pain, screaming and gasping as Marquez choked her, Tranter said.
A bloody, naked 19-year-old woman who was determined to be Marquez's daughter and the girl's mother also was in the room, chanting "something that was religious in nature," the spokesman said.
The officers then were able to force open the door enough for one to enter, leading to a struggle in which the officer used a Taser stun gun as he tried to free the girl, Tranter said.
After the initial stun had no visible effect on Marquez, a second officer also squeezed into the room and Marquez was stunned a second time, allowing one of the officers to free the girl and pass her out the door to the relative, Tranter said.



http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/194007.php

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

Just out of curiousity, I thought the Catholic Church was getting away from exorcism... anyone got more recent info?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thelunabird

He was probably on drugs like PCP, cocaine, or some other drug that makes your heart race...

quote:


thats why stun guns are illegal or not used by police departments in so many states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nyrisa

A "slug in the jaw" could have killed the man, also. It is not the neat trick which is shown by stunt doubles in the movies. Intracranial hemorrhage, spinal fracture, paraplegia.........not to mention possibly fracturing the knuckles of the policeman, too. Unless you mean to whack him with a club? But that can be lethal, too. To have wrestled him into submission with a choke hold could be lethal, too. Any kind of scuffle has the possibility of turning lethal. Let's face it, there is just no safe way to resist arrest with violence. The man had the choice to resist, or to let go of the girl. Everyone has to live with the choices they make.....some just don't have to live with them for more than a few seconds, as in his case.

Also, you stated: "That and granted his hands were around the kids throat does not "gaurantee he was choking her". The child may have just been gasping from the work of trying to fight or who knows what?

Granted the officer had no way to know it was a ritual until after the fact but i think it is to early to determine if in "fact" he was "choking" her.

i have never heard of an exorcism that included killing the person as a means of completing the process."

Let me see......hands around the throat of a child who is struggling, bleeding, screaming, and gasping. I am going to just have to go with the circumstantial evidence on this one. There are not too many benign occasions which require one to grasp a child by the throat.

And as to whether the exorcism was intended to kill the child or not......moot point. See the above.

I respect that other people have different opinions, but I have to say, in this instance, your arguments are disturbing, if not downright scarey. No disrespect intended, I just got a queasy feeling reading them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"The way i see it the officers should have just shot the guy, why bother with a stun gun at all?

i do not really have a problem with them trying to seperate them i have problem with them using lethal force to do so. "

Wouldn't shooting the guy be lethal force?

quote:

They're not big on talking about it, and some of them are losing their original faith, yes.
But as far as I know, there's one certified exorsist not far from where I live.
Choking isn't part of the procedure, though, as far as I know.