Cause and effect ... 41 years later ... murder!

Quote:

---

William J. Barnes shot and partly paralyzed a Philadelphia police officer in 1966, and he served 20 years for it and related offenses.

But last month, 41 years after the shooting, the district attorney filed new charges of murder after the officer, Walter T. Barclay Jr., died of an infection she says stems from the shooting. Mr. Barnes, now 71, was sent back to prison.

“The law is that when you set in motion a chain of events,” District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham said, “a perpetrator of a crime is responsible for every single thing that flows from that chain of events, no matter how distant, as long as we can prove the chain is unbroken.”

---

Think twice before you post a reply, you could trigger a chain, a well documented chain of events ... hey, you never know ... could kill someone. ;)

Fredi

*Scraps subs with a rusty nail*

I was thinking more along the line of giving reasons for suicide or something. I don't think virtual rusty nails have a big effect. :p

Fredi

They don't have a big effect, now.

You can write "salty ruins" with the letters of "rusty nails" ... does that mean I will die in salty ruins? And than you can write "at Sir Sly Nu" with the same letters. Who is Sly Nu? Does he kill me in those salty ruins? Hmmm ... now I'm scared. ;)

Fredi

if you marry a girl, sleep with her and make a baby, and she dies while giving birth, would you go to jail? From now on, no sex for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argonauta

if you marry a girl, sleep with her and make a baby, and she dies while giving birth, would you go to jail? From now on, no sex for me

---

but she made it too, it'd be like saying, she committed suicide when I killed her.

So it would be like if Kevorkian was a sexaholic?

Some people are just dying for a good time.
But what if it wasn't that great?

imagine Einstein's sentence.

Once again, US criminal law contradicts reason and sense.

Surely this flies in the face of the rule of not being tried twice for the same crime, as it is the crime that is prosecuted, not the result?

Don't forget, he shot a police officer, that automatically removes reason and sense for any officials involved. ;)

Fredi

TOTAL BS.. you would think some sort of Double Jeopardy would save him in this instance.. (how lame)

This is fk'n stupid! The guy should be let free.

agrees this is just out right idiotic... he served his time for the crime and that should of been the end of it.

The guy was probably convicted for attempted murder - as soon as the victim croaked it's a totally different crime. It's not double jeopardy. It's bloody ridiculous to send a 71 year old to prison, but then again, he wouldn't have this problem if he didn't shoot a cop.

Its reidiculous to be held accountable for a crime FOREVE.... especially after you comply with the 'sentence' they give you originally for the crime.

I mean can the criminal say.. hmm.. I know your giving me 20 years for 'attempted' murder...but Id like to NOT do that...and wait it out.. maybe he'll die and you can convict me on THAT one instead??


I mean there has to be rules for both sides.


My first reaction is that in 20 years if the doctors cant fix an infection.. THEY should be charged...

goes to show what a JOKE our judicial system is..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Napalm

The guy was probably convicted for attempted murder - as soon as the victim croaked it's a totally different crime. It's not double jeopardy. It's bloody ridiculous to send a 71 year old to prison, but then again, he wouldn't have this problem if he didn't shoot a cop.

---

You've got that completely ass-backwards.

If a 71-year old deserves jail time, let 'em have it.

The guy was tried for the crime he committed at the time.

Which is why it is said everyone has the right to a fair trial before a jury of their peers.

Notice it says 'trial' and not 'trials'.

Hurricane, this is 41 years after he served his time for the shooting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eleniatari

Hurricane, this is 41 years after he served his time for the shooting...

---

And your point is?

http://www.pizdaus.com/pics/bP28aFudAJ37.jpg

http://www.pizdaus.com/pics/bP28aFudAJ37.jpg

Fredi

He's going back to jail for an infection they cannot prove definitively is from the shooting.

How about if you were to give it two seconds thought about if it were you hurricane. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whispers

I mean can the criminal say.. hmm.. I know your giving me 20 years for 'attempted' murder...but Id like to NOT do that...and wait it out.. maybe he'll die and you can convict me on THAT one instead?

---

good point.

i couldn't imagine being that 71 year old guy and havign to go through all of this again. 20 years is a pretty damned long time to be in prison, and at 71, i would have had a heart attack on the spot the moment i heard i was being tried again for an infection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eleniatari

He's going back to jail for an infection they cannot prove definitively is from the shooting.

How about if you were to give it two seconds thought about if it were you hurricane. ;)

---

You still haven't made your point.

Are you for a retrial or not?

I am not - and I've had 14 years since my last Law and Ethics class to think about it.

I'm not for a retrial, he should be let free. He served his time for what he did. The doctors should be blamed for incompetence if they couldn't find something like this after all these years.

And as whispers said, just let the next criminal wait it out till he's 70 something and see if the person they shot dies before they try him.

He already did his time, and atoned for it. This isn't his problem anymore.

i just got a summons from court, apparently when i sneezed back when i was 8 it was so hard it resulted in the tsunami that hit india.

OH NOES! Should we have a march for you?

nah its cool

h1 & Eleniatari.. I think you guys are on the same side.. or did I miss something here? LOL

I find it VERY hard to believe that any lawyer worth his Mercedes cant get this thrown out.


heres another thought.. if convicted of this MURDER charge... can he SUE the state for wrongful prosecution for an ATTEMPTED MURDER charge he already complied with?

I mean if they tried this guy on Attempted Murder and he got off or mis-trial or something.. then yes I could see 20+ years later, if the cop died as a factual result of that incident, taking him back to court under the new charges for some sort of 'vindication/rest' for the family.

But he HAS served a sentence and abided by the rules/consequences imposed on him... and would the murder charge REALLY be that much more harsh? (doubtful in this case since it was a cop)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whispers

h1 & Eleniatari.. I think you guys are on the same side.. or did I miss something here? LOL

---

It's a shame Eleniatari couldn't get a handle on that before deciding to dole out their rather useless advice.

and here I thought I was loosing my mind.. ;)

I realized it after I went back and reread the first page. Why do you think I simply answered the question and stopped. ;)