Homicide is the intentional killing of a human. Homi - person & cide - to kill. That's to distinguish it from accidental or unintentional death. Murder is criminal homicide. Self defense is justifiable homicide.
I'm glad they were successful in defending themselves. I'm also glad they had the foresight to keep 911 on the line the whole time.
Doug Snarski did a great job in defending himself, family and home.
It was noted by one poster that he would have shot him sooner, I do not agree he did very well as to the conditions of likely low light, using concealment, taking into account of not harming an innocent if he missed and with in a range to ensure good and multiple hits, if he had shot to soon from a farther distance in low or no light this might have played out differently.
Even if it's accidental or negligent the death of one person as a result of the actions of another is homicide (unless the person doing the action and the the person dying are the same in which case it is suicide). There are many forms of homicide that are classified as criminal ranging from murder through manslaughter (in some states called negligent homicide) and including controlled substance homicide, vehicular homicide and felony murder.
For an interesting story highlighting the difficulties sometimes present in classifying a death read on:
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he passed the ninth floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicidal intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that an elderly man and his wife occupied the room on the ninth floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son’s financial support and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Wasn't that an episode of CSI?
That story is an urban legend that been floating around for a long time. I remember hearing it back in the late '80s. I have no idea of how true it is though. Anyone have Jamie and Adam's number?
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Even if it's accidental or negligent the death of one person as a result of the actions of another is homicide (unless the person doing the action and the the person dying are the same in which case it is suicide). There are many forms of homicide that are classified as criminal ranging from murder through manslaughter (in some states called negligent homicide) and including controlled substance homicide, vehicular homicide and felony murder.
For an interesting story highlighting the difficulties sometimes present in classifying a death read on:
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he passed the ninth floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicidal intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that an elderly man and his wife occupied the room on the ninth floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son’s financial support and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Of course it is and I never presented it as true (in fact, I pulled it out of my archive of jokes). The discussion was about murder v. homicide and I put this out as a humorous example of the distinctions with differences, the point being that every murder is a homicide but not every homicide is a murder.
The story sounds like something a Law Professor might also present to a class just to "exercise their minds".