Interpretation of law

[Denchi]

Yeah, you're right on a few points. I think that the case is heavily dependent on the coroner, which seems fishy. Like... that seems like a hard thing to prove 20 years later. But IF IT WERE THE CASE HE IS RIGHT, I believe, morally, that him serving time at this point for murder wouldn't be that ridiculous. He served time for shooting a police officer, and now the police officer is dead from that wound (or so the coroner says). He hasn't served time for killing that police officer, only shooting him.
He got lucky 20 years ago when the police officer didn't die, because he'd probably still be in jail.

But I don't know a whole lot about the law, or the statute of limitations, and ultimately the court will decide what needs to happen, not me. I just don't have huge moral qualms about putting him away at this point. I think you sign away a lot of rights when you decide to shoot a police officer, so I don't really feel bad for this guy.

[Skyylya]

The guy that shot the police officer kinda had it coming. Just because by some MIRACLE the cop survived the shooting this long the man only served 15 years. If my brother was shot in the line of duty, and lived, only to find out that he has an infection from the wound he suffered kills him, I'd be pissed too. Just because he's 71 doesn't mean he isn't guilty, and last time I checked "Feeling bad about it" isn't a good enough reason to get out of jail. You do time because you're being punished, this man killed someone, punish away. Next time you want to be treated fairly, don't rob a store then shoot a police officer, tard.

numbers game: 1966
+15 1981
cop dies 2007
total elapsed time since shooting: 41 years
total elapsed time since sentence served: 26 years

do you seriously mean to argue that the guy should be prosecuted again for a crime that is 4 decades old and he satisfied his debt to society for over a quarter century ago, just because some coroner declares cause of death to be complications from an infection related to a foreign object?

If the cop died right away from the same bullet would he have gotten out in 15 years or would he still be in prison. Do that numbers game.

i think it's fishy to say that there was an infection caused by the bullet this many years later. How old was the cop now, how good was his immune system and was it an infection he woulda got anyway. On the other hand, would the infection have started without the bullet there.


I won't say one way or the other if he deserves to be punished again or not. But, if and that's a big if, the dude did in fact die because of the bullet and that can be proven that sure punish away because the old guy is responsible for his death. However, if it was just some infection well after 41 years i'm sure that cop is old now too and has a deficient immune system perhaps that infection would killed him anyway.

Either way, the cop lived for 41 years after being shot and probably had any number of un-related things happen in that time that could've killed him and lived plenty long enough to be in his family's life so who knows. Probably nothing will come of it but depending on the evidence I could go either way.

[Amele]

he would've gotten life (probably for 2nd degree) if he had died during or shortly after the trial as a direct result of complications

and gotten out after some period of time (likely 20 years) for parole, depending on his plea and how lenient the judge was.

he would not, generally speaking, still be in jail in the state of PA; it's not known for giving life without parole sentences, especially when there's a plea bargain (and after the death of the cop, he'd be *insane* to not make a plea bargain)

[BRP]

Can anyone tell me what would be gained from putting this man in jail? He has already redeemed himself by not committing crimes, he has shown regret, and all it's do is cost tax payers money.

This whole DA system is stupid. And so is the fact cops have to hand out tickets to make money / reach a quota or whatever it is.

[Denchi]

Again, I don't think think "feeling bad about it" is a reason to get out of jail. Maybe what you did really was out of character, maybe right after committing the crime you decide never to break the law again. While fine and dandy, "Rehabilitation" is not punishment. If you do something wrong, you get punished, the end.

[Charla]

This whole DA system is stupid. And so is the fact cops have to hand out tickets to make money / reach a quota or whatever it is.

(threadjack)
You know, I was thinking about that on my way home from work today. Since everyone on the road around here goes 70+ whenever they can, cops could basically just set up a video camera on the highway, let it run for a few hours and do screencaps of licensce plates. Then send every single car a ticket in the mail and make millions! The insurance companies would make a fortune too, because with all those points flying around they could charge everyone with a car like 10 times more. Of course people might stop speeding eventually, but they could just move the camera to another highway after the first week or so.

On a related note, completely arbitrary "enforcement" of completely arbitrary speed limits is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. If the whole rest of the road is going 70, it would be less safe for me to drive at 64 than 70, but that doesn't make it legal. And when you think about it, that also makes basically everyone with a car a criminal. Right along with everyone who's ever used BitTorrent.

[Amele]

fact: it is possible to use bittorrent in a way that violates no international copyright laws. (but in general you're very correct)

[layoneil]

While fine and dandy, "Rehabilitation" is not punishment. If you do something wrong, you get punished, the end.

he did something wrong, he got punished, so why isn't it the end? he didn't do anything else.

[Denchi]

While fine and dandy, "Rehabilitation" is not punishment. If you do something wrong, you get punished, the end.

he did something wrong, he got punished, so why isn't it the end? he didn't do anything else.

He was punished for shooting an officer, nonfatal. Now the police officer is dead, so it turns out he killed the officer, which is a different, more sever punishment. So I'd say he got off light.

[Intense]

While fine and dandy, "Rehabilitation" is not punishment. If you do something wrong, you get punished, the end.

he did something wrong, he got punished, so why isn't it the end? he didn't do anything else.

He was punished for shooting an officer, nonfatal. Now the police officer is dead, so it turns out he killed the officer, which is a different, more sever punishment. So I'd say he got off light.

No, the infection killed the officer, not the defendent. He was convicted of the crime, but that doesnt necessarily mean it was his intention to murder the cop. To be convicted of murder, you need to be able to prove intent.

Im still fairly certain he will plead to a lesser charge and get credit for time served, if the judge doesnt dismiss it completely due to the dynamic of the case and in the manner in which the defendent has turned his life around.

[Khamsin]

There really shouldn't be any sympathy for a man who willingly shot at somebody with an obvious intent to kill or harm them. However long he served in jail already and however long he's been out of prison is irrelevant. The justice system is punitive, and it is not done punishing him.

If they guy didn't want to be in jail when he's 71, he shouldn't have shot the police officer.

As for an infection popping up years later, it is not necessarily any doctor's fault, nor is it necessarily anything that could have been prevented. Abnormalities in the body, such as defects in heart valves or arteries, can increase susceptibility to infection from everyday bacteria. Everyone is exposed to the same environment, but those with certain defects or abnormalities are more susceptible to it. As such, some people are prescribed penicillian before dental appointments and such as a precaution.

Now, there's a high chance the bullet could have hit an artery or organ and caused damage that, while repairable, left him more suspectible to infection. The infection obviously didn't come from something he was infected with the day he got shot, but it's possible the wound had caused some abnormality that made him vulnerable to infections that he otherwise wouldn't have been susceptible to.

Imagine AIDS for a moment. It's not the virus that kills, its a totally unrelated infection that the body could not fight off. In this case, its not that he couldn't fight it off, but rather the infection had a more direct route to his heart or other vital organs due to the damage the bullet caused years ago.

[Intense]

Lets prosecute AIDs then.

[Khamsin]

Lets prosecute AIDs then.

Is it illegal to not tell the people you sleep with that you have AIDS?!

[Intense]

Lets prosecute AIDs then.

Is it illegal to not tell the people you sleep with that you have AIDS?!

Oh right... by the way Kham, theres something I should have told you before...

[Charla]

The justice system is both punitave and corrective. They don't call it a "correctional facility" because it's a prettier name (although I guess it is a bit prettier than the word prison...).

[Stee]

From the DA's perspective I think it was a good decision as it ultimately makes an example of what can happen to someone who pulls the trigger on the cops.

However the sentence the DA is trying to push on him was a bit harsh although the guy did get to spend a lot of his good years out of prison which is a lot better then getting out of prison when your 80 with nowhere to live and no family.

[HAcoreRD]

how old was the cop he wounded then, VS how old when he died?

[Tyche]

I never went to med school, but I assume the infection didn't directly stem from the shooting, but was simply heightened to a fatal case because of the shooting. We don't know if it was improperly treated, cleaned, and cared. Maybe the guy was careless and didn't go see a doctor. Just seems to me the guy got a coincidental infection that lead to a fatality because he was shot. Sort of a chain of unfortunate events. Let's say I got into a fight and paralyzed my opposer from the waist down. Now, he's constrained to a wheelchair. If he rolls his wheelchair down flight of stairs, breaks his neck, and dies, should I go to prison for murder? I mean, it's sort of my fault because im the reason he's in a wheelchair. I kind of view this the same way, the guy wasn't directly responsible but a chain of events holds him liable for murder. (i assume, like I said, I couldn't see how an infection could stem from a 40 year old shooting without some kind of negligence).

[Amele]

how old was the cop he wounded then, VS how old when he died?

41 years older when he died. unsure of age when he was shot but at least post degree, so probably 22~24 at minimum.

[Tyche]

Which makes me think that maybe the fatal infection could have been caused by the degrading immune system of seniors. Maybe a younger, healthier victim could have fought off the infection. Theres just so many ifs, ands or buts that I just cannot see this holding up.