DC 9 Case Ruled A Homicide, Club Remains Open, Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. not re-filing charges at this time

Thanks to all who sent links to updates. I’m not even gonna pretend to understand what’s going on here. TBD writes:

The Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C. has just released a statement on the medical examiner’s findings — no move to re-file charges at this time, but they “intend to carefully study these conclusions as part of our legal analysis of this tragic incident.”

The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has confirmed that the manner of death was a homicide, and the cause described like this: Excited Delirium Associated With Arrhythmogenic Cardiac Anomalies, Alcohol Intoxication and Physical Exertion With Restraint.

DC 9 reopened this past Friday.

You can see some background on the incident here.

Anyone want to speculate what’s going to happen?

80 Comment

  • well, it’s clear that the cause *was not* blunt force trauma to the head, or some such clearly linkable injury.

    • When people have connections life gives them more breaks.

      • Yeah, connections to facts do tend to be helpful.

      • “Connections”?? Are you high?

      • I’d feel better if the U.S. Attorney’s
        Office had stated that they:

        “intend to carefully study the findings
        in the autopsy report and compare them
        to the conclusions, as part of our
        legal analysis,”

        instead of them saying that they:

        “intend to carefully study these conclusions
        as part of our legal analysis…”

    • We don’t know if it was blunt force trauma
      because the Post & other fake news reported only
      on the conclusion section of the autopsy report,
      as opposed to the findings and the factual observations in the report, which will likely reveal things like bruised eye, lip; broken rib, tooth, neck, etc. That’s why a great US atty. would compare the findings in the
      report with the conclusion of the report, to determine
      if the conclusion accurately reflects the factual findings(e.g., observations) and fully specifies the external causes of death.
      A good reporter also goes for the facts and observations
      in the autopsy report; whereas an amateur sticks right with the conclusions and sometimes overlooks the facts.

  • There will be a civil suit but a criminal charge looks extremely problematic. Look at the facts….a guy throws two bricks through a bar window. The bar staff chase him down and he dies. The police claim he was savagely beaten and the papers publish pictures of the bloody scene. But soon enough we learn that the bloody scene was of another incident and that the victim wasn’t beaten. And that he was violently aggressive, had heart problems, was very drunk and that the only outside agency of his death so far reported was ‘restraint’.

    Would you want to argue that to a jury?

  • Looking at what the OCME put out, the manner of death doesn’t necessarily mean anything is criminal. Forensic experts divide deaths into two categories: Manner of Death and Cause of Death. Manner means homicide, suicide, accidental, natural, etc. Cause is the cause i.e. acute blood loss due to the puncturing of the femoral artery with a knife, pulmonary embolism, etc..

    So for instance someone who collapses of a heart attack and dies has a manner of death as, “natural” and a cause of death as, “Myocardial infarction”. In this case, Mr. Ali’s manner of death was homicide and the cause is “Excited Delirium Associated With Arrhythmogenic Cardiac Anomalies, Alcohol Intoxication and Physical Exertion With Restraint.”.

    The finding also doesn’t mean that anything criminal occurred. If I shoot someone dead in the line of duty who’s shooting at me, the OCME will still rule the manner of death of the guy I shot as a “homicide” and the cause of death “gunshots wounds leading to acute blood loss/organ destruction/yada yada yada”. That doesn’t mean that I did anything criminal; on the contrary it was a lawful homicide.

    I’m not an expert by any means, but a finding of homicide was only made probably because it appeared that being restrained by someone caused the physical exertion and aggravated whatever physical anomalies that he had.

    From what I’ve seen so far and if I had to bet anything, the USAO isn’t going to go for charges and if they do, they might be able to sustain a simple assault or an aggravated assault. But then again maybe there’s something in the report that might change the equation. It would be nice if the OCME released the report or listed whether or not Mr. Ali had any conditions.

    • now if only everyone thought the way you do… (i agree with you btw)

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium
      The diagnosis of excited delirium has been controversial.[5][6] Excited delirium has been listed as a cause of death by some medical examiners for several years,[7][8] mainly as a diagnosis of exclusion established on autopsy.[1] Additionally, academic discussion of excited delirium has been largely confined to forensic science literature, providing limited documentation about patients that survive the condition.[1] These circumstances have led some civil liberties groups to question the cause of death diagnosis, claiming that excited delirium has been used to “excuse and exonerate” law enforcement authorities following the death of detained subjects, a possible “conspiracy or cover-up for brutality” when restraining agitated individuals.[1][5][6] Also contributing to the controversy is the role of taser use in excited delirium deaths.[3][9] The American College of Emergency Physicians has officially recognized excited delirium as a unique syndrome[10] and “rejects the theory” that excited delirium is an “invented syndrome” used to excuse of cover-up the use of excessive force by law enforcement.[11]

  • I would fry those guys. Employees shouldn’t be running down a guy that threw a brick at a business.

    The guy died as a result of something that happened while these guys were doing something they shouldn’t be and weren’t trained to do. Change the circumstances to your house, and we can talk.

    Good thing I’ve never been called for jury duty.

    • A good thing indeed, since you’ve already made up your mind based on a faulty understanding of DC law.

      Taking what OCME released at face value — and applying Boomhauer’s correct (and very good) explanation of what it means — you have to conclude that it was the “running down” and restraint that was a major contributor to the death, not beating, kicking, etc.

      In DC, citizens arrests are legal (DC Code 23-582), so “running down” and restraining someone is perfectly OK when there’s probable cause to believe that a felony (oh, say, aggravated assault via a brick) has been committed. I’m not saying it’s wise, only legal.

      So, maybe you should take your hand off the electric chair switch and slowly back away.

      • I never said I was a lawyer. Just an emotional fellow.

        • Fair enough, but I was criticizing your potential as a juror, not a lawyer.

          Anyway, this case is pretty much both appalling and tragic all around. No one has said that this guy deserved to die, but his contribution to his own demise is being overlooked by some people.

          Let me ask you this, and I’m not asking to be argumentative or a jerk, but if it turns out that restraint was all that happened (no punches, no kicks, no smashing heads on pavement), and if that can be established with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, does this change your opinion? The reason I ask is that now that it’s been shown that citizens arrests are legal, then what exactly would the crime be? And falling back on that old prosecutor’s cliche that someone has to pay for his death doesn’t cut it. Sometimes deaths go unavenged.

      • No frying, but there’s a dead guy here. There’s no consequences attached to contributing to his death?

    • Did this guy throw a brick through a plate glass window in a crowded club? If I was standing in front of that window when that brick was thrown I would have kicked his ass myself.

    • Jeez, good thing indeed.

      I guess you stopped listening the moment Lanier gave her “savage beating” rant the day after the incident? I’m no professional expert anything, but it sounds to me like the end result would very likely have been the same if Mr. Ali had been chased down and restrained by the police (who are trained to do that).

      The outcome of this incident was tragic and regrettable, no question, but as far as the incident itself, it seems to me that the most unreasonable behavior was when someone hurled a brick through a window of a nightclub.

    • @RaggedDog – changing the circumstance to my house – if someone through bricks through my window, I would chase him down and beat his ass. If he died because of a heart attack, I’d feel kinda bad – for about 2 seconds – then I’d get over it. He didn’t deserve to die, but he deserved to get his ass beat. No issues with that.

  • I think the DC9 guys acted reasonably, and that the death was not something anyone would have reasonably expected. If someone threw a brick threw my window, my instinct would be to chase him, pin him down, and punch him as well. I think many, if not most, people would have the same reaction, and for that reason the USAO isn’t going to waste their time. Had it been blunt force trauma they could argue that the reaction was overkill, but the facts here don’t seem to support that argument.

  • DC9 is going to remain open. I thought they savagely beat this guy apparently I was wrong. He just had a bad heart and was really drunk and during the chase overexerted himself when chased and restrained.

  • Anyone know if khat is detectable with toxicological testing and if/when the toxicology report will be publicly released?

  • Case closed. More transom please.

  • Physical restraint was clearly required, since the guy was trying to flee. Could the DC9 employees have anticipated that “physical restraint” would cause his death? I think not. Did they use excessive force in restraining the man? The medical report indicates nothing of that sort.

    And I expect the US Attorney’s Office to decline to press any charges. Unfortunate, but the guy was very drunk, and intentionally smashed the establishment’s window, and so must bear considerable responsibility for the outcome.

    Should the matter go to court (unlikely), the defendants could make the case that the Chief of Police has prejudiced any jury with her unfortunate comments, asserting publicly that they “savagely beat” the man to death. That’s another reason for the USAO declining to pursue this case any further.

  • The lesson here, children, is: Apart from anyone who happens to be directly involved or witnesses enough to really understand an event, THE PUBLIC NEVER KNOWS SHIT ABOUT THESE THINGS. Public outrage is a lovely inkblot test of groupthink. So before getting all hot & nasty about something you see in the “news,” just take a deep breath and repeat your new mantra:

    “I was not there.
    I did not see this thing.
    I don’t know shit about this thing.”

    Then, assuming verifiable facts come in from some godlike office somewhere, you may decide to be outraged or not. (Medical examiner’s statement trumps Lanier shooting off her mouth way too early, in the manner of someone who, likewise, dinnae know shit about this thing).

    An educated consumer is our best customer ™.

  • Finally you guys are being reasonable about this case (with the exception of Ragged Dog and the person who would beat someone for breaking their window). It is very unfortunate but the facts don’t make for a very fruitful criminal or civil case. I also just want to point out that didn’t the MPD have to “restrain” Ali as well? Just saying.

  • I could have been standing right next to that window and been covered in glass and gotten a concusion or wound from that brick hitting my head. The guy was being a public nuisances and danger to innocent people. Once he decided to move forward with his plan to throw the brick, he put himself in a position to deal with the consequences. Don’t ask anyone to the dance if you don’t intend to dance!

    The alcohol and his health condition is what killed him, not being restrained awaiting for the police.

  • It’s nice when we can convince ourselves that knocking someone around doesn’t hasten the process of injury or death. And that this guy had it coming as soon as he tossed a brick through the window, and that his death is something that can be written off with a “my bad!”

    I wonder if peple would feel the same if the club was in SE, the bouncers were black, and the brick thrower was a white non-profit employee with a rescue dog.

    • What kind of dog? I can imagine I’d feel differently if it was a pug.

    • Assumption #1: There was any “knocking around” at all. The facts as revealed by OCME don’t bear that out. Restraint does not equal knocking around.
      Assumption #2: The club employees were all white. This is not true.
      Assumption #3: Everyone who can follow a logical argument without introducing race into the issue is racist.

      Hmm…, I wonder how YOU would feel if the club was in SE, the bouncers were black, and the brick thrower was a white non-profit employee with a rescue dog. Seems to me that you’re the one introducing race into the debate. No one here has said that they would feel any differently.

      • I’d love to tell you how I feel, “Anonymous:”

        The exact same way. It’s a group of assholes chasing down a guy over a window. And now someone’s dead. Nobody deserves to die over a window, nor does a group have the right to gang up on someone over a window.

        Bar windows can rest easier knowing that these guys are protecting their dignity.

      • I’d love to tell you how I feel, “Anonymous:”

        The exact same way. It’s a group of assholes chasing down a guy over a window. And now someone’s dead. Nobody deserves to die over a window, nor does a group have the right to gang up on someone over a window. Five on one over an act of vandalism is not fair, ever.

        Bar windows can rest easier knowing that these guys are protecting their dignity.

        • sorry for the double post

        • OK, but that’s not what you said. You said that he was “knocked around,” when that appears not to have been the case, and then you implied racist (or at least hypocritical) motive on the part of the commenters here.

          If you truly feel that no one has a right to detain another when there’s probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed, that’s fine. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of citizens arrests myself. However, DC law explicitly allows them and the evidence is starting to mount that a citizens arrest is exactly what they were doing. The OCME statement only references “restraint,” not blunt force trauma.

          Oh, and I’d argue that 5 on 1 is usually the safest way to do a citizens arrest. Overwhelming force and all that.

        • It’s not just over a window. He threw a freaking brick into an establishment with people inside. He could have seriously injured someone. Who knows what other damage he could have done if not restrained, not just to property but to people as well.

    • Keep the race-baiting BS coming, we slurp that stuff up like Ben’s chili around here!

      Seriously though, WTF did you want the security staff to do when a drunk guy they’d already negged threw a brick through the window? Let it slide? Go chase him down, get his picture with a cameraphone and let him go? If the facts of the case are that they chased the guy down and restrained him until the cops showed up, where exactly do you find fault?

  • Buncha white folks supporting dc9 after they kill a black man. typical for this site. you bammas should be ashamed.

  • interesting that now all of a sudden everyone ”knew it all along” that the dc9 guys acted appropriately. all i have been reading is offensive comments about the ”savage beating” …

  • None of us were there, but yet all of you defend the dc9 guys as if they are your brothers. Some of you said that if someone breaks your window you would chase them down and bit them, and it is only 12pm and I am assuming you are not drunk. Imagine, 5 hot headed bouncers, at 2 am in the morning, of course they are going to just run after Ali, to carefully hold him, to prevent him from going further till policy arrive.. Bullshit. It is human nature as some of you demonstrated above to be forceful… especially, 5 guys, each doing his little part adds up to big damage if you are on the receiving end. According to eye witness, he cried: please, please, please…that doesn’t sound like someone who is fighting back.
    Also, am I to believe you, who were nowhere near that location, over two eyewitnesses who stated what happened? Both said something like: Ali, took brick, throws brick, then run… he was chased by the 5 guys, tackled, and then got stomped as he begged for mercy.
    Also, if you don’t think these 5 bouncers were not hot headed by that time, then you would be wrong. According to another report, they just dealt with another 21 year old who broke one of the two windows earlier that night, so of course they are going to get all their frustrations on Ali, the second guy to break a window.
    Justice will be served; I am not worried about this. These 5 guys will rat each other out in an effort to get a lesser sentence, etc. How about the guilt? It does strange things to people… so unless they are truly innocent, watch as they self-destruct.

    Meanwhile, all you supporters, enjoy your nights at dc9, but don’t come crying if something similar happens to you or someone you are close to, because as most of you expressed a person’s life is not worth as much as a 500 dollars window.

    • First of all, neither I nor anyone I’m close to throws bricks through windows, so I doubt very much that I’ll be crying to anyone. If it does, though, I’ll be sure to avoid complaining on PoP.

      Second, you’re criticizing people here for making what you consider to be unwarranted assumptions by making quite a few of ’em yourself. “Human nature”? Thanks, Rousseau. I’m sure you’re an expert.

      Third, like you said, none of us was there. As a reasonably intelligent adult, I’m allowed to pick and choose which sources of information I believe, and — gasp — I think I’ll believe the sworn testimony of the OCME, who did not cite bruising consistent with a “stomping,” over some drunk sitting on a street corner at 2 am. No stomping or beating = no crime.

      • Anon says: “.. you’re criticizing people here for making what you consider to be unwarranted assumptions by making quite a few of ‘em yourself. “Human nature”? Thanks, Rousseau. I’m sure you’re an expert.”

        As a reasonably intelligent adult that you are, I expect you to really read what I said, then you will see I wasn’t making a blanket assumption about “human nature,” but an observation based on what I read in a couple of posts above.
        What are my other assumptions?

        • Opps, it is me, SOY who poted the above

        • Nice backtracking, but you can’t even explain your own comments correctly. What you said was “It is human nature as some of you demonstrated above to be forceful” The “it is human nature” part is the blanket assumption, while the “as some of you demonstrated above part is just a lame attempt to justify that assumption. Should I go on?

          Your second assumption is “Also, if you don’t think these 5 bouncers were not hot headed by that time, then you would be wrong.” You have absolutely no idea of the mental state of anyone associated with this case.

          Third assumption: “These 5 guys will rat each other out in an effort to get a lesser sentence, etc.” Again, you really have no clue about any of this. First of all, the charges have been dropped so there’s no plea barganing going on right now. The US Attorney would have to reinstate charges, which is far from certain, despite what you think.

          I get that you’re pissed about the whole thing, but you’re just as bad as those who said at the beginning of this “I know so-and-so, and there’s no way he was involved in a fatal beating.” They had no idea at the time, and neither do you now. If the OCME report had said that this guy died of trauma from a beating, then most of us would be cheering on the prosecution. The facts, sadly for the guy and his family and friends, don’t support that.

    • Word. Thank you.

  • Also, Anon: make up your mind, you either believe the eye witness or not. If you don’t believe them then you can’t say for sure that Ali throw a brick or two at the DC9 window since they are the ones who said that. A reasonably intelligent adult is supposed to be fair in their assessment and see all sides, not just “pick and choose” the eye witness words to justify your strong believes.

    • You failed logic, didn’t you?

      I can believe that he threw the brick because that allegation was made both by the eyewitnesses and the suspects. It’s unrefuted.

      I can believe the OCME report when it says that the guy died from a medical condition aggravated by being restrained because its scientific evidence from a trained professional.

      There’s nothing inconsistent here.

  • Q)Was drunk dude beaten to death?

    A) Nope.

    Q) Did drunk dude die for our sins?

    A) Nope, just threw a brick threw a window.

    Q) Were there other deaths, involving people who didn’t go out like a brick throwing psycho recently?

    A) Yes, virtually everyone who has died in the area recently has done so without being a POS during the time immediately leading up to their deaths.

    Q) So why are we focused on this one death?

    A) … dunno.

    My neighbor’s family was gunned down in their business this summer for a few hundred dollars in the cash register, and no one made note of it. But here are people calling for divine retribution for some drunk asshole who threw a brick through a window. WTF is wrong with you people.

    • Why don’t you fight for your neighbor instead of bitching about it? It so happen some of us feel strongly about this case since we think what was done to Ali was wrong. You already formed your opinion so no need for you to be here telling us how to behave. Move on Q&A.

      • Yeah, but if he was beaten to death, the coronors report would say something like, oh, I don’t know: Cause of death – blunt trauma.

        BUT IT DOESN’T.

        So why don’t you move on Anonymous.

    • Being gunned down is a little less brutal than being beaten to death.

      Also– while most of us have never owned a shop, many of us have done stupid things while drunk or known someone who has. Maybe not property damage, but the relateability is still there.

    • i’m sorry your neighbors family was gunned down. thats horrible and horrible no one talked about it. did you try to get the word out? did you talk to PoP or the press?

      this dc9 murder is a big story because of many factors. if you really don’t understand them, we can talk about them. is it really an issue for you?
      or ar you just grieving for your neighbors?

      • I’m simply making the point that this city’s outrage is random at best and this is more random than normal.

        • it’s not really random. you simply lack the understanding of the mechanism.

          • No, I understand perfectly. You’re in love with outrage for outrage’s sake. Add in a dash of race, take away all rational thought, ignore facts, embrace gossip; it’s like beer soaked grain for the Grade D American cattle that represent the public groupthink (you).

  • Oh yeah, of course YOU are going to believe the suspects (what is new), and therefore you believe it is ‘unrefuted’

    I can say the same about you failing logic, let me explain: Allegations were made both by the eyewitnesses and the police that support each other; he was tackled and beat (eyewitnesses), then found unconscious (police). The different between you and me here is that you believe the 5 suspects (who are trying to save their asses), and I believe the Police who have no motive on this case.

  • Police was not there so they don’t know about the alleged brick. We were not there so we don’t know either; the only info we have about the brick is from the “DRUNKS” as you put it, and from the suspects. (BTW, why are you so certain that the two eye witnesses were drunks? Wouldn’t that make your assumption as knee-jerk? Your words. In any case, no we can’t really put the alleged brick throwing to rest just to make you happy, according to you the drunks/suspect cancel each other out (I don’t agree with you, but whatever) so technically we don’t know Ali broke dc9 window and will continue to be alleged.
    The second allegation, we just have to wait and see the outcome. As I indicated in my original post, I believe that the truth will come out and it won’t be in the suspects favor. Personally, I value human life more than you seem to value a human life, even if that person was a drunken person who happens to allegedly break a window. Unless this was a self-defense situation (which was not given Ali was running away), I won’t condone any kind of violence that results in a loss of life. Material things can be replaced.

  • Anon: we will continue to disagree so you go support your dc9 gang, I will wait for more info to come out in the coming weeks. I don’t think we heard all about it yet. Good day, and thanks for your advise. I do have some shopping to do.

  • I was actually on one of the two grand juries that heard elements of this case.

    I sooooooooooooooooo wish I could comment, but of course that is prohibited.

    But I am impressed with the relative civility of the
    discussion here.

  • no justice from dc, will result revenge the solution brothers.

Comments are closed.