So the police killed an innocent bystander

[Asher]

Keep up, Boris. He didn't die from a heart attack.

[Dauphin]

Legally, it's still murder. A person's health condition is no excuse for you causing injury.

Except a reasonable person would have to know that it could cause harm?

It may be a moot point in your example as kicking can cause harm to anyone, but if the cause of death was you gave someone a meal and they died of an unusual allergic reaction, are you still liable for manslaughter?

(excluded an unlawful act element, I know...)

[DirtyMartini]

Dude looks drunk and may not even really have been aware of the police presence -- in fact, he barely reacts to the first baton strike. The cops may well have been yelling at him to move -- he doesn't. If I'm a cop in riot gear, all jacked up to confront a mob, and there's some dude stumbling around in front of me with his hands in his pockets, ignoring my stringent requests to gtf out of the way, I'm going to assume he's intentionally impeding me. That said, I'm not sure it merited a baton and a full body check.

[SpencerH]

I dont think the baton hit him since he doesnt seem to react in any way.

[dannubis]

Good thing you aren't a cop in riot gear then

[Fake Boris]

Keep up, Boris. He didn't die from a heart attack.

As usual, most dishonest poster on Apolyton.

You claimed that he died because **** happens, and that as such it shouldn't be murder.

I point out politely that ignoring a person's health condition you agressed and killed is *still* manslaughter (at least by Canadian law).

Your assumption was wrong. That he died of something else (internal bleeding) has nothing to do with your original claim. Why do we even bother?

[Fake Boris]

Legally, it's still murder. A person's health condition is no excuse for you causing injury.

Except a reasonable person would have to know that it could cause harm?

It may be a moot point in your example as kicking can cause harm to anyone, but if the cause of death was you gave someone a meal and they died of an unusual allergic reaction, are you still liable for manslaughter?

(excluded an unlawful act element, I know...)

In Canadian law, it has to be an act that would under resonable circumstances be considered an aggression.

Giving a meal doesn't apply, unless you know the person's condition.

[Asher]

As usual, most dishonest poster on Apolyton.

You claimed that he died because **** happens, and that as such it shouldn't be murder.

I point out politely that ignoring a person's health condition you agressed and killed is *still* manslaughter (at least by Canadian law).

What the ****? you said it was MURDER, not MANSLAUGHTER.

How ****ing dare you call me the most dishonest poster on Apolyton.

Scumball. Get bent and come back when you feel like discussing WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

Pro Tip: Do not lie about what you said, several posts removed from saying it, in the same post as calling someone else dishonest.

[Dauphin]

In Canadian law, it has to be an act that would under resonable circumstances be considered an aggression.

That's a distinct statement from saying "A person's health condition is no excuse for you causing injury". I demonstrated you can cause a death even when it is reasonable to consider it would not even cause injury.

Also, I think you mean reasonable under the circumstance. Else the argument of "reasonable force" is all out the window.

[DirtyMartini]

Good thing you aren't a cop in riot gear then

I'm not? Then what's up with this badge and all this Kevlar??? And where did all this blood come from???

[Patroklos]

Keep you bedroom roleplaying to yourself please.

[Fake Boris]

What the ****? you said it was MURDER, not MANSLAUGHTER.

How ****ing dare you call me the most dishonest poster on Apolyton.

Scumball. Get bent and come back when you feel like discussing WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

Pro Tip: Do not lie about what you said, several posts removed from saying it, in the same post as calling someone else dishonest.

Murder is a vague term. I did mean manslaughter.

But you said:

I don't see how you can criminally say the police murdered him. I'd like to see the officer fired for clearly using excessive force on a citizen who was doing no wrong, but to call it murder is ludicrous.

If you commit manslaughter, you have murdered someone, in a non-legal sense. When you said 'he hasn't commited any murder', you obviously meant not even manslaughter,as the bolded part demonstrates. Or else you would have called for a manslaughter punishment, not excessive force, wouldn't you?

[Fake Boris]

And BTW, manslaughter is sometimes referred to as 3rd degree murder.

[Fake Boris]

That's a distinct statement from saying "A person's health condition is no excuse for you causing injury". I demonstrated you can cause a death even when it is reasonable to consider it would not even cause injury.

Also, I think you mean reasonable under the circumstance. Else the argument of "reasonable force" is all out the window.

Sure. But I thought the precisions would be obvious.

[Sirotnikov]

Boris - sorry, that doesn't work out.

It is yet to be determined by a known source that it was indeed internal bleeding caused by the fall that killed him.

And in any case, it would not be murder, since the riot police thug simply wanted him out of the way, not killed. That policeman is a thug, and should be reprimanded if not fired completely. But there are mitigating circumstances - the person's behavior is very odd, his location was near police in the middle of a large civil disobedience, and his strange behavior probably appeared just as suspicious as SpencerH thought. He was logically perceived as a threat by the policeman.

Beyond that, the attacking policeman had no reason to expect a shove to kill that person.

The problem is that he chose to brutally shove him instead of holding on to him, and checking his pockets, and questioning him. But murder it ain't.