• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Man Charged with Murder 41 years later

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Apache;1103523; said:
Is this not a case of double jeapordy? Being tried twice for the same crime?
Click to expand...

AKAKBUCK;1103525; said:
Assault (or whatever) and Murder are different crimes.
Click to expand...

You two bring up an very compelling point. The shooting was one act, so how could it be two "different crimes"? I can understand where a person could be initially charged with a shooting and then if the victim subsequently dies the charge being upped to murder...you're simply increasing the charge for the act. But saying the same act is two distinct crimes sure looks like double jeopardy. Once the criminal has served his full time for the initial act, he should no longer be liable for that act. Now, if he were still serving the initial sentence, and thus not having fulfilled his debt to society, when the victim died, then I can see them tacking on to his setence. But once he has fulfilled his debt, he's done.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1103538; said:
You two bring up an very compelling point. The shooting was one act, so how could it be two "different crimes"? I can understand where a person could be initially charged with a shooting and then if the victim subsequently dies the charge being upped to murder...you're simply increasing the charge for the act. But saying the same act is two distinct crimes sure looks like double jeopardy. Once the criminal has served his full time for the initial act, he should no longer be liable for that act. Now, if he were still serving the initial sentence, and thus not having fulfilled his debt to society, when the victim died, then I can see them tacking on to his setence. But once he has fulfilled his debt, he's done.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I hadn't looked at it in that way...

Here's a hypothetical question: Let's say person A, who was blinded by person B, years later is killed after a fall (maybe down some steps or something else where there's no other person to blame). Would person B be complicit / legally responsible for person A's death? Well, technically, yes, but I guess the questions would be what are the applicable extents or limits of the law.

Are there times/acts where there are no applicable statutes of limitation?
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1103536; said:
What a pisser.
Click to expand...

Urethra person who feels for the dead cop or not. By that, I mean ureter sypathize with the shooter or the victim. But I'm no whiz, so I won't keep bladdering on about this.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1103538; said:
You two bring up an very compelling point. The shooting was one act, so how could it be two "different crimes"? I can understand where a person could be initially charged with a shooting and then if the victim subsequently dies the charge being upped to murder...you're simply increasing the charge for the act. But saying the same act is two distinct crimes sure looks like double jeopardy. Once the criminal has served his full time for the initial act, he should no longer be liable for that act. Now, if he were still serving the initial sentence, and thus not having fulfilled his debt to society, when the victim died, then I can see them tacking on to his setence. But once he has fulfilled his debt, he's done.
Click to expand...

Excellent clarification.

FCollinsBuckeye;1103552; said:
Urinary tract infection =/= murder.

Surely this guys incompetent doctorb is more culpable. This belongs in Medical Malpractice, imo.

:p
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Upvote 0
shetuck;1103549; said:
Interesting. I hadn't looked at it in that way...

Here's a hypothetical question: Let's say person A, who was blinded by person B, years later is killed after a fall (maybe down some steps or something else where there's no other person to blame). Would person B be complicit / legally responsible for person A's death? Well, technically, yes, but I guess the questions would be what are the applicable extents or limits of the law.

Are there times/acts where there are no applicable statutes of limitation?
Click to expand...

Let's say I get hit by a drunk driver, breaking my leg. Two weeks later, I'm on my crutches, trying to cross the street. Because I'm on crutches, I can't get out of the way of another drunk driver. Which DD is at fault for my getting hit the second time?
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE;1103555; said:
Let's say I get hit by a drunk driver, breaking my leg. Two weeks later, I'm on my crutches, trying to cross the street. Because I'm on crutches, I can't get out of the way of another drunk driver. Which DD is at fault for my getting hit the second time?
Click to expand...

George W. Bush.
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE;1103555; said:
Let's say I get hit by a drunk driver, breaking my leg. Two weeks later, I'm on my crutches, trying to cross the street. Because I'm on crutches, I can't get out of the way of another drunk driver. Which DD is at fault for my getting hit the second time?
Click to expand...

Dolly Parton?
 
Upvote 0
OCBuckWife;1103511; said:
Yeah, the guy was paralyzed for that time, but he was alive. He was in car accidents, fell out of his wheel chair, who knows how active and or happy he was. Being paralyzed in a wheel chair isn't as good as being able to walk but it's still way better than being fucking dead.

I don't condone the shooting, but I don't believe revenge at the end is worth this kind of misguided "justice." We have a prison system that is built on the idea that you do your time, you don't owe society anything anymore. Can't we even keep that one idea right?
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.

Seems to me that you cannot miss an opportunity to put an Iggles fan to death.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top