OT: Police Consider Homicide Charges After Officer Dies 40 Years After Shooting

[Thomas Rogers]

That's right...almost 41 years later, a guy that shot the policeman might get charged with homicide now that the cop has died due to complications of that historical gunshot.



I just have never heard of anything that dragged out this long before.



See the link below for this local Philly news...

 

[Tom Schindler]

You shoot someone and they die because of the gunshots, that is considered murder. The only reason it is being pursued is because he is a cop.





Tom

 

[Kevin Palmer]

If it truely is connected to the gun shot, then I would say that the person that did the shooting carries some resposability to the shooting.



If the gunshot DID affect his life and or the ending of his life, the shooter bears resposability. To me, it is that simple.

 

[Jenn D]

Here's a little "devil's advocate" to stir the pot...



You are resposible for a car wreck that causes a person to ultimately have an organ removed, lets say the spleen. Your insurance pays for the medical care of the person, you get a ticket for wreckless driving. 2 weeks later, the now spleenless person, that you are responsible for, gets an infection dies from complications.



Are you now accountable for vehicular homicide?



A bit far fetched, yes, but ultimately the same idea.



You may say, well, the infection was the fault of the hospital that did the surgery. But, the person would have never been there if not for you. Medicine had its chance to help. For the gunshot victim above, medicine still had its chance too.

 

[A1cntrler]

And for Jenn D to continue:



I think the real person responsible is the owner of the business or homeowner of where the person who had the spleen removed was coming from. If they had not lived in that location, then the spleenless person would have never been there in thier car in the first place. Let's just keep going back until we find a company that has high dollars and decide to make them responsible. That way we can bank some big bucks and live high on the hog for a few months until we run out of the money..Then we can sue someone else and make them responsible



I think the whole thing smells bad. The guy that did the shooting already served time according to the article.

 

[Jenn D]

Then we can sue someone else and make them responsible

Exactly!! You've played this game before!! :lol::lol::lol:



IMO it all goes back to Lawyers. If it wasn't for frivolous lawsuits, people wouldn't even attempt to get away with half the BS that is wrong with this country.

 

[user 62394]

Wouldn't this be double Jeopardy??? The article says that he was already convicted of the shooting and served his time. How can you be convicted of (I'm assuming) attempted homicide and homicide for one shooting?? This makes no sense to me.



Rocks

 

[Rick Kent]

Jenn D and others.



The standard in many courts is reasonably forseeable. Is it reasonably forseeable to die of an infection due to an accident that ruptured the spleen? Probalbly yes.



Bar exams usually have a question that deals with this concept. The one I have heard of relates to an explosion in a city is caused by the negilgence of a contractor. Several blocks away a window is shattered because of the flying debris and someone falls out of the broken window to their death. Is the contractor responsible for the death?



You have 30 minutes to answer the question and provide your legal analysis with case sites.

 

[Tom Schindler]

It is because this situation involves a police officer.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Be careful, fkent.



I discussed the same concept a year or so ago and was crucified by many.



At that time we discuss a scenario in which utility workers were assumed negligent in restoring power during an outage, and during that prolonged outage somed people asyphixiated themselves via carbon monixide poisoning while trying to stay warm. I asked if in such a scenario might the utility workers be partly liable for the deaths.



Many took it as a "nobody assumes responsibility for their actions" scenario.



Kind of like some guy tripping a falling out a window in your case.



TJR

 

[EddieS'04]

I say they need a nuetral opinion autopsy!

 

[Scott Doughtie]

MTU...technically they are two different crimes. However, if anything, and found guilty of murder, he might only have to serve the difference in the two sentences.



I wonder about two things. What exactly were the complications that resulted in his ultimate death and what could have been done in the beginning to possibly prevent the complications?



This is truely weird. Normally, a crime victim dies before the legal process has run its course. In those cases, the charges are normally modified and/or upgraded to reflect the more serious crime.

 

[Rick Kent]

TJR,



I remeber that now.



I am not buying or selling on this topic, only providing accepted legal principals that may apply to this scenario.

 

[Johnny O]

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

 

[TomT]

It's not double jeopardy because it's a different offense he would be charged with. He was charged with attempted murder, now he could be charged with murder. I think it's pretty lame and I don't think any prosecutor do it.

The real problem is the fact that the shooter only was sentenced to 7-15 years in jail. What kind of justice was that?

 

[Kevin Palmer]

At the very least, the death could easily bring on a civil case.



No double jeopardy there..

 

[Thomas Rogers]

UPDATE...the shooter from this almost 41 year old incident is being charged with murder:

 

[Rick Kent]

Seems to be a waste of time and taxpayer money. The "murderer" is now 71 and no longer (presumably) a threat to society.



Take the money that it will cost for another trial and appeals plus the cost of housing the man in prison and give it to the family of the officer instead.