By Mike Bibb
During a press conference by the Police Chief and officials of Providence, Rhode Island following the shooting of 13 students at Brown University on Dec. 13, 2025 — in which two students were killed and 11 injured — the Police chief, Oscar L. Perez Jr., indicated the shooting "suspect was in custody."
Almost immediately, a city official stepped forward and whispered to Perez "custody is the wrong word."
A hot mike caught the incident.
Personally, I'd think the police chief should know what "word" to use. After all, he just didn't graduate from the academy.
The "suspect" was later released.
Later, during the evening of Dec. 18, it was reported another suspect was discovered decreased in New Hampshire from self-inflected causes.
If it was actually the individual involved in the Brown University shooting remains to be confirmed.
Nevertheless, in only a few days, two different "word" discrepancies have been used to describe two separate shooting tragedies.
One was referred as being an "accident" by a U.S. Representative describing in a Congressional hearing the killing of a National Guard female soldier in Washington, D.C., and the other mentioning a shooting suspect at Brown University in Providence had been caught and placed into "custody."
Apparently, these terms were considered too offensive to the suspects' civil rights.
However, at least one of the individuals willfully shot and killed a National Guard soldier, while two university students were murdered by another person. There's no doubt about this — the bodies were placed in a morgue awaiting funeral proceedings.
Yet, press and liberal-minded officials were distraught over the improper terminology used to describe the situation and apprehension of the perpetrators.
As if the rights of the assassins were more important than the lives of the murdered individuals.
An obvious indication political correctness and woke indoctrination has run berserk. Now, an intentional shooting of a National Guard trooper is called an "accident" and the apprehension of a suspect gunning down a dozens students at a state university is erroneously referred to as being placed into "custody."
Why is this happening? Specifically, what is the purpose certain authorities are disclosing felony crime situations in a more sympathetic procedure?
"Murder" is homicide — the intentional killing of a person by another. It is not an accidental situation, where a person is mistakenly killed in some manner.
"Custody" is the placement of a person suspected of a crime into police jurisdiction.
"Detention" is temporary containment of a suspect by the police. It might lead to eventual full custody or release.
At least, this is how I understand the phraseology. Undoubtedly, attorneys have more descriptive terms, depending upon the circumstances and type of homicide.
Either way, if a person or persons are intentionally murdered by another person or persons, it is homicide in some degree and that person or persons are susceptible to arrest and containment/detention by the police pending trial.
We're presently seeing this scenario play out in the Charlie Kirk assassination trial in Utah, and the suspect apprehended in the National Guard killing in Washington D.C.
Even the recent slayings of Hollywood director Rob Reiner and wife by their own son — allegedly — is a double-homicide committed with, supposedly, the use of a knife.
It was not an accident, perpetrated by a deranged family member; it is murder.
All these people purposely approached their targets with premediated intentions of killing them.
To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous and certainly not an apt remark of the circumstances of the crime.
Yet, this is the game being practiced in certain public law enforcement circles, where the "rights" of the suspect seems to exceed the rights of the victim.
The victim(s) is dead. His/her life's adventures are over.
In these current cases, the suspect is just beginning his association with the criminal justice system, even though he may have had prior arrests and convictions.
However, for authorities attempting to sooth the emotions and pacify the feelings of a press and listening audience by offering words of inappropriate comfort in describing the horrors of a murder scene, are not compatible with reality.
No matter who is insulted or disagrees with the tone and language, murder is still murder in whatever form or fashion it is carried out.
It is not a pleasant topic to discuss and shouldn't be masked in DEI terms or shrouded in petty excuses to appease the emotional conscious of the offender.
A good prosecuting attorney will shatter those illusions and passionately present to the jury why a murderer is still a murderer, no matter the difficulties of his family circumstances, theology or political beliefs, social misfortunes, bank account size, brain malfunctions or misguided intentions.
His motives are only a prelude to the irredeemable act he ultimately committed — the willful destruction of a fellow human being. An act that cannot be mended by any religious ideology, amounts of money, years in prison or endless recitations of "I'm sorry."
Those pleas are expected, but of little comfort to the family and friends of the victim. Forgiveness may be divine, but memories are slow to forget.
