so what's your opinion
 

guy shoots cop, serves time for attempted murder
cop dies 41 years later, same guy charged with murder

thoughts?

Harsh.

I see where this is coming from, but if a car is stolen, rebirthed, sold, then accidently runs over someone, is that homcide by the car thief?

41 years later? Excessive. Nope.

I think someone's still bitter. Understandably so, but the shooter did serve his time.

well, it ain't scottish.
comes too close to double jeopardy, they're just creating loopholes.

I'm sure I heard somewhere that in Britain there's a law where if you die of your injuries up to one year after being attacked or whatever, then the perp can be tried for murder, but if you die of your injuries even a year and one day afterwards then it can only be attempted murder.

I'm not sure if that's right exactly - perhaps I dreamt it, but it would make sense that there's some time scale involved surely?

But if we're going down that road, how about every rapist whose victim eventually commits suicide or becomes a substance abuser and dies from that? Shouldn't they be charged with murder too?

Just to stir the pot a bit?

Would people have different views if the guy had been in a coma for 41 years? Would that make a difference?

I disagree with the notion of charging him with murder after all the time that's transpired.

But am interested in hearing why he's still living in a halfway house. If this happened 41 years ago and he served his 15 year sentence...why is he still in the custody of the BOP? It sounds like he's already in the prison system to a certain extent so what good would piling additional charges do other than put him away for what will amount to the rest of his life?

In the US, there no statute of limitations for murder...that said, I think wyndhy's right, if this isn't double jeopardy, it's bumping right up against it...if the cop had died of his injuries before the trial, the attempted murder charges would have gone away, to be replaced by murder charges...so how does the justice system rationalize what is essentially trying the guy for the same crime?

I'm sure they'll come up with something here in the era of zero intelligence...

An infection...in/of what?

There needs to be more info.

If he got infections ever since the incident, due to being paralyzed by the shooter, and one of these infections eventually killed him...than it's the shooter's fault. But if the infections were/are due to neglect or of a more "natural" or everyday nature...than no, it's not the shooter's fault.

Depends on what the infection was from!

I think it was intended to be derived from the second to last paragraph:



At least that was how I interpreted it...

I'm very confused.

One paper said he served a 15 year sentence and now works at a supermarket near the halfway house he's living in.

The second paper said he was finally released in 2005.

Additionally, it was stated that Mr. Barclay's life played out almost exactly as his surgeon had predicted so many years earlier: By his 60s he was bed-bound, unable to care for himself, infection ravaging a body too weak to fight. Barclay died at age 64.

I guess what I'm thinking is that if it was predicted that his life would play out like it indeed did...wouldn't this have been taken consideration when determining the sentence?

It sounds as if the shooter has spent his life in and out of jail, so if you count concurrence, so I suspect it totally fucked both lives.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's double jeopardy.

Where's double jeopardy? Last time I checked murder and assault were two separate crimes.

You're probably thinking of the "Year and a Day Rule". That law was abolished in the UK in 1996.

He wasn't charged with Assault he was charged with attempted murder. I'll agree that attempted murder and murder are not the same crime as far as the law is concerned. The difference is if the victim dies or not. In this case the victim did not die and he was charged with attempted murder because of that. He was convited and has sevred his time now the want to charge him again with murder for the same act because the victim has died. The fact that he is being charged with a new crime for the same act is what makes it double jeopardy.

I might be wrong, but I would think that a good attorney could get him off. I think it'd be very hard to prove that the shooting is what directly caused his death 41 years later. :shrug:

In any case, I think it's stretching the point to even charge the guy.

I suspect they know they won't get him, but they're going to make him very uncomfortable for a long time.

You can be charged with multiple charges from the same crime.

True Jude (oh and thanks for the info on the year and a day rule) but surely then everyone who is accused of murder would be accused of attempted murder too? I mean, you can't murder someone unless you attempt to, so should a murderer be tried for both?

The question remains, I think, should attempted murder be punished less harshly than actual murder? I mean if the intent is the same in both cases, shouldn't the punishment be? And what about the victim? It might be less traumatic in some cases to die than to survive a murder attempt, and certainly more frightening for the victim to know that the person who tried to kill them will be free again sooner. What if they decide they want to finish the job off? I can see a lot of sense in murder and attempted murder charges carrying the same penalty.

He served time for attempted murder, not assault.

I didn't say it is double jeopardy, just that it comes too close, at least for me – “moral double jeopardy” is the term being bandied about here, I believe.

Barnes is an ass, he's had a long history of criminal activity and parole violations, what he's done in his past is despicable and reprehensible but just because our state law allows murder charges to be filed 41 years after a victim has been assaulted (attempted murder is aggravated assault here in PA, boog and scotz) and given the perpetrator had been convicted of lesser charges and has served time for the offense, as barnes has done, doesn't mean I hafta agree with it. In my not so humble opinion, it’s more that our state law doesn’t precisely spell out in legalese that you can’t.

You'd be hard pressed to find cases like this one where the victim was not a cop, and even harder pressed to find a case where the verdict was in favor of the prosecution. Judges don’t like it and the public doesn’t like it. The prosecutor is using flimsy logic and loopholes to waste the taxpayer’s money on a trial for a guy who’s NEVER going to be convicted of murder in the first degree, which would mean life imprisonment, and who’s even unlikely to get murder in the second, which carries a life sentence with parole possible after 20 (I think), but who would – if convicted at all which is extremely unlikely - get murder in the third, a sentence that carries a minimum of 5 years, which barne’s has already served four times over.

The murder in the third and aggravated assault minimum sentences are the same, i think, lou. It's just that judges and juries use their own discretion and the facts of the case to either impose the minimum sentence or opt for a more severe (up to certain limitations) punishment.

(notice i used capital letters, people. :p:D )

Even though murder in the third degree is not a capital offense? :confused:

:p so sue me.

I discussed this story on another message board and someone stated that they most likely could. Most DA's wouldn't though because, well, what's the point really?

psssst....you spelled "suck" wrong. ;)

The murder/attempted murder thing is like being caught speeding and getting tickets for exceeding the speed limit by 15kph or less, 30kph or less and 42kph.

The case doesn't get anywhere close to double jeopardy. The charges are derived from a crime the took many years to develop through to finality.
The officer, while alive had life and livelihood destroyed by an attempt to end his life. A punishable crime committed against him. He lived on physically impaired and with no posibility of return to active duty or any other skilled occupation. His life was effectively destroyed, though a hope could remain for improvement, somehow.

The time served by the perpetrator of the attempted murder was rightly served. It was not to be expected that he could or would surpass all hope of the victim of the crime and become successful while the victim deteriorated, languishing in his injury from the crime. Therefore, the civil liberty enjoyed by the perpetrator was forfeited in the commission of the crime.

When the officer died, therefore double jeopardy could not apply.

The murderer should spend the remainder of his life in prison without the posibility of parole.

murder in the first for shooting someone during a robery? yikes.

Someone on the other message board I mentioned linked a few laws on this. If someone dies during the commission of certain felonies it is Capital Murder.

Linkage

do you know if that's PA law?

nevermind, i clicked the link and saw it's a state.tx.us site

This crime happened in PA and would be tried under PA law. This is what I found from the PA consolidated statutes, crimes and offenses, chapter 18(oo! I can actually cite something!:D) There's no mandatory sentences listed but I'm pretty sure I got those right, or at least close.


§ 2501. Criminal homicide.
(a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowlingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.

(b) Classification.-Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.

§ 2502. Murder.
(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice int he perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

Homicidal Tendencies
 

:cuffs:
:cuffs: Murder: The killing of a human being by a sane person,with intent,malice aforethought(prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way),and with no legal excuse or authority.This is "First Degree Murder".By statute inclusion the death of a Police Officer, or Prison Guard,with OR without premeditation and with Malice presumed is also First Degree Murder. Second Degree Murder,is such a killing without premeditation,as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight.To be Murder the victim must die within a year of the attack. Attempted Murder is commited when the defendant does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the crime of Murder and,at the time of these acts,the person has specific intention to Kill. Criminal Attempted Murder depends on an intention to Kill alone. Attempted Murder is only the planning of a Murder,NOT the actual Killing,which is the Murder. Criminal Attempts carries a Maximum penalty of LIFE Imprisonment,(the same as that for a successful Murder). So, in answer to your question,the defendant,having served his sentence,on the original charge,and as clearly the limit of time exceeded,(one year,to be considered a Murder charge) The defendant was wrongfully prosecuted,as he did not fall within the scope of Murder...Personaly,I say,"Kill em' all, let god sort it out", and "3 people can keep a secret, if 2 of them are Dead".lol,take care of each other, Crazeee,,,, :cuffs:

This is the key statement. So, yes, I agree with the guy being charged with murder.