Death of Officer 40 Years After Shooting May Bring New Charges for Gunman

Foxnews.com ^ | August 22, 2007 | AP

[SALChamps03]

Between then and now, he could have been hit by a car or died in numerous ways. This is wrong. The man has already been punished for his crime, as he should have been.

[SeaHawkFan]

How in the world can a coroner make an honest claim that the cop died of complications from the shooting.

I’d vote “not guilty”.

[supercat]

No statute of limitations on murder.

True, though that generally relates to cases where the decedent died immediately but the murderer was not caught. A forty-year time span between action and death would tend to blur the causal relationship a little too much to allow a 'murder' conviction; the statute of limitations would preclude a manslaughter conviction.

On the other hand, some prosecutors seem willing to seek murder charges for any causal relationship ending in death. I read on theagitator.com about a prosecutor who sought murder charges against someone who had fled police because some news reporters crashed their helicopter while following him. What Type Fudge?

[microgood]

Now maybe you see why. *You* haven't been shot at work, have you?

Duke Cunningham singlehandedly changed the balance of air power between us and the Soviets during Vietnam, probably saving thousands of lives, and he went down badly for corruption. We are all equal before the law or there is no respect for the law.

This coroner is an idiot and could never prove this case. This is totally an emotionally based reaction.

Perry Mason always started out with the blindfolded lady and the scales and that is the way it should always be. This would be a precedent that would be abused beyond belief.

[microgood]

But it was definitely a homicide if the gunshot caused his paralysis and that lead to his death.

Impossible to prove that some event that occurred over the last 40 years did not contribute to that event. Maybe he fell of his wheelchair one day or hit is head against a door. They would be lucky to get 2 jurors to agree with this. Heck, they probably cannot even find anyone that can even testify to what originally happened.

A nice emotional high for those seeking pure justice but ridiculous to pursue, and the precendent could doom anyone, including you. Maybe someone you injured in a football geme can find a coroner that can connect that injury to his death, and then you are a murderer, or at least guilty of manslaughter.

[Mila]

I vote no on this one. Too many years have intervened and, although the original wound certainly may have shortened his life, how could it be proven that it was the direct cause of his death? I would think that the natural ageing process would have to be taken into consideration as well. Too complicated to bring to a jury,IMO.

[driftdiver]

“Now maybe you see why. *You* haven’t been shot at work, have you?”

Yes I have. Its no fun but I knew what I was getting myself into.

[driftdiver]

“A nice emotional high for those seeking pure justice but ridiculous to pursue, and the precendent could doom anyone, including you. Maybe someone you injured in a football geme can find a coroner that can connect that injury to his death, and then you are a murderer, or at least guilty of manslaught”

And thats my point.

[Still Thinking]

On the other hand, some prosecutors seem willing to seek murder charges for any causal relationship ending in death. I read on theagitator.com about a prosecutor who sought murder charges against someone who had fled police because some news reporters crashed their helicopter while following him. What Type Fudge?

Yeah, I think the case you're describing happened here in Phoenix a couple weeks ago. I could see murder for the cops (and generally I don't approve of giving cops better legal treatment than commoners), but for the news chopper guys, no way. The cops need to chase the guy to enforce the law and protect society. Not so the news guys. If they follow the guy, it's motivated by personal gain for themselves and their employer. Certainly nothing wrong with that, but not a compelling enough reason to charge someone who only indirectly contributed to their deaths. If I follow the police chase because I'm curious, and have a heart attack in the process, should the perp be charged in my death?