In an update, Jack points to today’s Theo piece which includes further comment from the medical examiner.
“I said accidental mainly because there was no hint that they were actually intending to kill anybody,” Gunson said Friday. “They were intending to take someone into custody, and he died, and they didn’t intend that.”
Except that my understanding of the cause manner of death determination is that it has nothing to do with intent, which is the domain of later criminal proceedings, if any. The cause manner of death determination is meant simply to determine whether the individual died by accident, by natural causes, by killing themselves, or as the result of the actions of another person or other persons.
As I said in my last post, the “cause manner of death” phase of an investigation isn’t about intent, and any potential ruling of “homicide” by a medical examiner has nothing to do with motive or an intent to kill. It would not be a determination that a “murder” had occurred.
This is just further evidence (on top of things such as the District Attorney working to protect the officers in the Perez case) of officials taking advantage of any available wiggle room to keep the police officers involved safe from prosecution.
Addendum: One correction. What we’re all speaking of here isn’t cause of death, but manner of death, as defined by ORS 146: “the designation of the probable mode of production of the cause of death, including natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal, legal intervention or undetermined.”
So, cause of death would be the blunt force trauma, I guess. It’s the manner of death which is being debated here and elsewhere.
Addendum: For example, the jury of inquest into the officer-involved shooting death of James Jahar Perez ruled it a homicide. Officials went to great pains to explain the difference and distinction between a cause/manner determination of “homicide” by an inquest jury or medical examiner and a “murder” charge in a criminal proceeding.
So, why is the state medical examiner in this case telling The Oregonian that motive and intent were taken into consideration in the Chasse ruling, when such matters are irrelevant to a manner of death determination by that office?
You say “So, why is the state medical examiner in this case telling The Oregonian that motive and intent were taken into consideration in the Chasse ruling, when such matters are irrelevant to a manner of death determination by that office?”
You’re probably being rhetorical, but there are three possibilities as I see it.
Sadly, we, the public, are unlikely to get the elites in our government to address the question directly.
Unless, y’know, we ask. It appears that Karen Gunson is attached to the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office. Contact them at DA@mcda.us. Be polite.