Column 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 didn’t just graduate from the academy.
The “suspect” was released.
Later, during the evening of Dec. 18, it was reported that another suspect was discovered deceased in New Hampshire from self-inflicted causes.
Whether 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 to 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 mentioned 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 another person murdered two university students. 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 that political correctness and woke indoctrination have run amok. Now, an intentional shooting of a National Guard trooper is called an“accident,” and the apprehension of a suspect gunning down dozens of students at a state university is erroneously referred to as being placed into “custody.”
Why is this happening? Specifically, what is the purpose of certain authorities’ more sympathetic disclosure of felony cases?
“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. “
“Custo”y” is the placement of a person suspected of a crime into police jurisdiction. “
“Detention” is the 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 another person or persons intentionally murder a person or persons, it is homicide to some degree. That person or persons are subject to arrest and to police containment/detention 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 his 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 premeditated intentions of killing them.
To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous and indeed not an apt remark of the circumstances of the crime.
Yet this is the practice being employed in certain public law enforcement circles, where the “rights” of the suspect seem to exceed those of the victim.
The victim(s) are dead. Their life’s adventures are over.
In these cases, the suspect is only beginning his involvement with the criminal justice system, even though he may have prior arrests and convictions.
However, for authorities attempting to soothe 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, is 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 it should not be masked in DEI terms or shrouded in petty excuses to appease the offender’s emotional conscience.
A reasonable 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 any religious ideology cannot mend, 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.
The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author.
