They can't be serious [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Solkern

08-23-2007, 10:30 AM

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/new-charges-considered-in-1966-shooting/20070822171809990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

This guy was sentenced to 10-20 years for shooting a cop 40 years ago, the cop JUST now died from complications from the shooting and they actually want to charge this man with murder..wtf

Clove

08-23-2007, 11:26 AM

Don't shoot cops. Nothing good will come of it. Especially in Philly they're fucking hardcore.

Sean of the Thread

08-23-2007, 11:33 AM

That's some bullshit. The guy lived 2/3rds of his life before dying of "complications".

Justice was served now it's tough shit you're dead.

Clove

08-23-2007, 11:37 AM

That's some bullshit. The guy lived 2/3rds of his life before dying of "complications".

Justice was served now it's tough shit you're dead.

Thanks for that Sean2. I feel better again.

Atlanteax

08-23-2007, 11:51 AM

It seems that the cop was paralyzed ever since being shot... so yea, I'd lean towards murder charge being justified, as he effectively did end the cop's life then.

Sean of the Thread

08-23-2007, 11:53 AM

It seems that the cop was paralyzed ever since being shot... so yea, I'd lean towards murder charge being justified, as he effectively did end the cop's life then.

IF that were the case we might as well start charging people with murder when they first paralyze someone.

I'm all about law and order.. it's my most conservative trait but some things like this border on retardation.

Sean

08-23-2007, 11:54 AM

I'm sure theres a number of people out there who are paralyzed to certain extents that would argue that it didn't effectively ended their lives.

CrystalTears

08-23-2007, 11:58 AM

I thought he meant the cop life, not the life itself.

Atlanteax

08-23-2007, 11:59 AM

Well, I did say that "I'd lean towards"

I do not know the extent of his paralysis.

If he was Christopher Reeves paralyzed ... wouldn't you agree?
If it was a minor paralysis which required a cane to get around, I'd say it'd be uncalled for.

Sean of the Thread

08-23-2007, 12:01 PM

I just clearly stated that I would NOT agree.

IF that were the case we might as well start charging people with murder when they first paralyze someone.

I'm all about law and order.. it's my most conservative trait but some things like this border on retardation.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 12:04 PM

As it stands right now I'm pretty sure judges take level of injury into consideration when sentancing (no fact behind this, just pulled it out of my ass). If I'm wrong then if you shoot a cop and graze him, breaking a finger nail, apparently that's the same as if you shoot a cop and put him into a vegetative state for the remainder of his life (so I'm pretty sure that's not the case).

That said I would think that if he served his 10-20 for paralyzing the cop then I'm of the opinion that if he dies 40 years later "becase of it", well then he's already served time for his action (shooting the cop), and he shouldn't be able to be charged again. (as much as I think that shoting & paralyzing a cop, or anyone, should have a bit of a term then 10-20)

Sean

08-23-2007, 12:04 PM

Atlanteax

08-23-2007, 12:05 PM

I just clearly stated that I would NOT agree.

Was to the other Sean.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 12:05 PM

Atlanteax

08-23-2007, 12:06 PM

Not really. Christopher Reeves continued on. He fought and lobbied for causes he believed in, he spent time with his friends and family, hosted the paralympics, founded a research center, etc. Basically his life was no over because he was paralyzed. Drastically changed? Yes. Over? No.

My fault, bad example then... someone in the same condition, but did not have the celebrity (and wealth) that enabled him to do all of that.

Sean

08-23-2007, 12:14 PM

A lot of people get dealt shitty hands in life regardless of their wealth of celebrity status. If you aren't willing to adjust your goals in life based on what you're dealt thats your own problem. But being in an unfortunate circumstance certainly does not mean your life is over.

I'm in no way justifying him being shot but the guy was caught, he was sentenced for shooting the cop, assuming he did his time for that crime and is rehabilitated I'd say it's over.

TheEschaton

08-23-2007, 12:21 PM

Errr, if, in the hospital, he was brought to stability by doctors, the liability of the shooting ends. Had he been in the ICU for 40 years, barely clinging to life, then yes, I'd agree about the murder charges.

However, this is beyond the scope of proximate cause. Well, well beyond. There musta been thousands of superceding, interceding causes since then. If he died from complications arising from his paralysis, why didn't these complications arise sooner?

Has his paralysis/medical conditions been getting consistently worse over 40 years? That might change things. But if he was shot 40 years ago, was paralyzed 40 years ago, stablized 39.9 years ago, and suddenly today dropped dead of...what? A bullet fragment which travelled up his bloodstream into his brain? Then no, there's no justification.

-TheE-

Atlanteax

08-23-2007, 12:35 PM

Errr, if, in the hospital, he was brought to stability by doctors, the liability of the shooting ends. Had he been in the ICU for 40 years, barely clinging to life, then yes, I'd agree about the murder charges.-TheE-

This was more along the lines I was thinking of.

But seeing how it was 40 years ago, and assuming that the cop had a decent life (albeit wheelchair bound), I'd agree with the sentiment that it's over and done with.

DeV

08-23-2007, 12:47 PM

For reference... http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I94_0005.htm

Retroactive sentencing, especially 40 years after the initial charge is not a good precedent to be trying to set.

Sure it's an emotionally charged issue concerning a young officer's career being cut so short. The man convicted of the crime served his time and unlike the link I posted above this is 40 years later, not a few weeks. If I was on the jury I'd vote no unless other extenuating circumstances surrounding the victim's "complications" came to light, as well as the perps life and what he's done with it since being relased from prison.

TheSmooth1

08-23-2007, 01:11 PM

Of course not, the end.

I wouldn't make a very good member of the jury.

"Are you fucking stupid? Of course not you moron! Christ, your vote doesn't count."

I get rather heated in arguments.

Methais

08-23-2007, 02:22 PM

If I die from a heart attack 40 years from now, I expect McDonald's to be shut down because of the happy meals I ate when I was 5.

Clove

08-23-2007, 02:40 PM

Fuck him. Don't shoot cops in Philly and the Man won't screw with you (much). I have difficulty imagining the prosecutor convincingly proving to a jury that a direct complication from the shooting ended this officer's life 40 years later... but if they can (or think they can) I say go for it.

I know. I'm a bastard. I think deadly assaults (attempted or successful) on police officers should be dealt with harshly. But if you think I'm draconian, you should ask my Irish immigrant coworkers what happens to someone who raises their hand to a police officer over there.

Methais

08-23-2007, 02:41 PM

Tell him to post here so I can ask him.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 02:57 PM

I think deadly assaults (attempted or successful) on police officers should be dealt with harshly.

Personally I think deadly assaults on anyone attempted, successful, death or no death should all be dealth with just as harshly... "oh so I just barely missed your heart when I shot you... that means my punishment is half of that of the guy that hit two inches over".

DeV

08-23-2007, 03:04 PM

Personally I think deadly assaults on anyone attempted, successful, death or no death should all be dealth with just as harshly... /agree

Sean of the Thread

08-23-2007, 03:07 PM

Well they can go overboard with the whole attempted murder shit sometimes so I disagree slightly. Manslaughter is an interesting topic as well considering.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 03:12 PM

Well they can go overboard with the whole attempted murder shit sometimes so I disagree slightly. Manslaughter is an interesting topic as well considering.

Yeah sometimes they do go overboard... I think my stance has more to do with assault then cases of non-direct physical violence... while I think there needs to be a better approach to addressing aspects of like... someone putting peanut butter in an allergic individuals food where it's hard to tell if it really was attempted murder... if I fire a gun at you, kill you or not, I put your life at risk (and obvious grey areas make this tough... if I rob a bank and start by shooting the guard in the leg so that I don't have to kill him for example...)

Manslaughter is also very grey area type of thing IMO... Car accidents being the big one there.

Blazing247

08-23-2007, 03:36 PM

Interesting. Murder is the act of one human unnaturally ending another human's life before they would have naturally expired. If this man would have otherwise lived another 20 years had he not been shot and paralyzed, I would say that can be construed as a very loose application of the definition of murder. I don't necessarily agree with this case, but I can see the application at least civilly, if not criminally.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 03:39 PM

Interesting. Murder is the act of one human unnaturally ending another human's life before they would have naturally expired.

By causing you to read this post instead of going out and exercising I have negatively affected the duration of your life.

I murdered you.

Blazing247

08-23-2007, 03:53 PM

You win. You're absolutely right and that wasn't the least bit retarded.

Celephais

08-23-2007, 04:03 PM

You win. You're absolutely right and that wasn't the least bit retarded.

You're aware that the legal system has a completely different definition of "Murder" then you do... your definition doesn't even match up with the dictionary definition. There are judges to interpret the meaning of the legal definition, and the fact that they "unnaturaly ended their life earlier" might play a role but it's not the only deciding factor (I'm aware you said loosely).

If I break your legs with a baseball bat, then when you attempt to go down stairs in your wheelchair and fall and break your neck, I didn't kill you... if I didn't break your legs you wouldn't have died, but I still didn't murder you.

TheEschaton

08-23-2007, 04:38 PM

Murder is the act of one human unnaturally ending another human's life before they would have naturally expired.

But homicide is different from murder. Homicide, as a crime, requires three things: causation, intent, and proximate cause. Namely that the actions you took: A) caused the harm, B) that you meant to cause the harm, and C) the consequences reasonably arose (and were reasonably foreseeable) from the actions you took.

It's A) which is in question here. No one is doubting that he caused the harm of PARALYZING the cop, nor that he had an intent to seriously injure the cop. Nor can they argue that paralyzation doesn't reasonably arise from being shot.

HOwever, when you throw in the 40-years-later-he-dies-from-paralyzation, it's a whole different ball of wax. Did his actions cause the harm? It's hard to say. They certainly caused the paralyzation. Were the complications from the paralyzation due to a degenerating condition which couldn't be stopped, or negligent medical care after he had been stabilized? Even if that happened, and he had the intent to kill the cop (assumed here), is death from complications 40 years later reasonably connected to the actions?

Most proximate cause theories would probably say no, since time is a factor in the reasonableness of something arising from the actions.

-TheE-

Blazing247

08-24-2007, 03:37 AM

You're aware that the legal system has a completely different definition of "Murder" then you do... your definition doesn't even match up with the dictionary definition. There are judges to interpret the meaning of the legal definition, and the fact that they "unnaturaly ended their life earlier" might play a role but it's not the only deciding factor (I'm aware you said loosely).

If I break your legs with a baseball bat, then when you attempt to go down stairs in your wheelchair and fall and break your neck, I didn't kill you... if I didn't break your legs you wouldn't have died, but I still didn't murder you.

But the legal system is open to interpretation and isn't black and white, as seen by many Supreme Court decisions that alter what we perceive as the law. Yes, my definition is not the textbook legal definition, nor is it something I got from dictionary.com, in fact I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this case. My point was that a stretch could be made to consider this murder. Let's go to your analogy. Say you break my legs with a baseball bat, and a few months later I throw a clot as a complication from the surgery that I had on my legs. If you never hit me, I would never had had the clot, and I would still be alive. What's your take on that?

Again I'm not defending it, just saying I can see how it could be stretched to incorporate it.

Sean of the Thread

08-24-2007, 08:32 AM

Few months < 40 years

Clove

08-24-2007, 10:46 AM

Tell him to post here so I can ask him.

Go find your own immigrants!

Clove

08-24-2007, 10:53 AM

Personally I think deadly assaults on anyone attempted, successful, death or no death should all be dealth with just as harshly... "oh so I just barely missed your heart when I shot you... that means my punishment is half of that of the guy that hit two inches over".

Assaults on police officers ought to be dealt with more harshly than assaults on ordinary citizens, since their job requires them to be in the paths of violent criminals. Just as punishments for police officers who are found guilty of breaking the law ought to be more severe, since their job requires them to uphold it.

This should not be interpreted as "we should treat all other assaults lightly".