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.