Cop Dies of Injury

[Lord Hillyer]

well, that's arrogant. I don't have an incorrect view. I just have a different view.

Oprah Winfrey is a great example of how responsibility works. She had every disadvantage (poor, female, black, raped, etc) and look where she is.

So you are implying that any poor, female, black, raped person can become famous and rich with their own daytime syndicated talk show - it only they have enough 'responsibility'?

 

[Tiassa]

My point. Is that worth prosecuting the man? I don't think so.

I'll second that.

• • •​

So what exactly would you consider the 'cut off' point.

For instance, let's say that I shoot a cop, and he died from complications of the gunshot wound within 1 day. Is that murder?

One week?

One month?

One year?

A decade?

Once you've stated where you draw the line chronologically, explain why the criminal is liable at X days, but not at X+1 days. And please try to do this without going off on a tangent, because I don't have the patience to read waffle.

Talk about a set-up. I won't bother meeting your standard since it's just a foundation for you to whine.

In the meantime, the matter of healing and resuming some sort of life. The cop had one.

Analogously, a friend of mine was struck by a bicycle delivery guy speeding down the sidewalk in San Francisco some years ago. There's a steel rod in his back now, and he walks with a permanent limp. Anything more than short distances and he requires a wheelchair. His joints are continually degrading at an accelerated rate; his body's systems are out of balance. Someday, the continued degradation of his body might be the leading factor in his death. Should we, forty years down the road, go haul the bicyclist into court for manslaughter?

Your analogy isn't relevant. Cancer is a far cry from getting shot

It's still a chain of events.

Getting wounded from a gunshot is direct cause-effect, cancer from environmental toxins isn't.

Just admit it, Mountainhare: money is more important than life. That's what the corporations believe, and are afraid to admit. They demand the right to poison the air you breathe and the water you drink. And they demand that any ill effects you suffer from their pollution are your own problem.

Just admit it.

 

[mountainhare]

Tiassa:

Talk about a set-up. I won't bother meeting your standard since it's just a foundation for you to whine.

Dodge dodge dodge. And more baiting from a mod.

I'm merely asking you to answer concisely. Didn't they ever give you word limits in your tertiary education?

In the meantime, the matter of healing and resuming some sort of life. The cop had one.

The cop didn't have what one could call a 'life'. He suffered terribly because of the injury inflicted by the criminal, and then he died as a result of it.

Analogously, a friend of mine was struck by a bicycle delivery guy speeding down the sidewalk in San Francisco some years ago. There's a steel rod in his back now, and he walks with a permanent limp. Anything more than short distances and he requires a wheelchair. His joints are continually degrading at an accelerated rate; his body's systems are out of balance. Someday, the continued degradation of his body might be the leading factor in his death. Should we, forty years down the road, go haul the bicyclist into court for manslaughter?

Was your friend negligent, or did the pedestrian jump in front of him?

Just admit it, Mountainhare: money is more important than life. That's what the corporations believe, and are afraid to admit. They demand the right to poison the air you breathe and the water you drink. And they demand that any ill effects you suffer from their pollution are your own problem.

Wow, if only this strawman had a brain.

All I'm saying is that you'd be hard pressed to conclusively a direct cause effect between 'environmental toxins' with 'cancer'.

There are some clear exceptions. For example, if company negligence results in a particular poison being placed in your food which may take years to kill you (I remember one such poison being used by a medical doctor to kill his wife slowly by placing it in the coffee), then yeah, the company would indeed be guilty of manslaughter.

 

[Tiassa]

Dodge dodge dodge.

What, dude? You asked for a specific period. Setting a specific period for something like that is idiotic.

And more baiting from a mod.

Would you like some cheese with that?

The cop didn't have what one could call a 'life'. He suffered terribly because of the injury inflicted by the criminal, and then he died as a result of it.

They never should have let him out of the hospital, then.

Was your friend negligent, or did the pedestrian jump in front of him?

Uh, try reading that one again.

Wow, if only this strawman had a brain.

Well, I was stooping to your level.

 

[mountainhare]

Tiassa:

What, dude? You asked for a specific period. Setting a specific period for something like that is idiotic.

Why? If this copper had died from complications one day after being shot, I have no doubt you'd hold the gunman liable for his murder.

Apparently there is a cut-off point at some point in time. So the question here is: When? And more importantly, why do you refuse to answer?

Would you like some cheese with that?

Nope, sorry. I hate cheese more than I do trolls. I guess that makes me an oddity amongst Westerners.

They never should have let him out of the hospital, then.

Umm, relevance?

Uh, try reading that one again.

Yeah, I misread. Chalk it down to the Avil, which makes it difficult to concentrate on huge wads of text.

But yes, I do agree that the bicyclist should be held accountable for your friends death, if he does indeed die from wounds which were brought about by the accident. I fail to see why 'time' can absolve murder.

 

[Nasor]

Why? If this copper had died from complications one day after being shot, I have no doubt you'd hold the gunman liable for his murder.

Apparently there is a cut-off point at some point in time. So the question here is: When?

Okay, I know this isn't directed at me, but my answer would be: when the person has already been convicted and served out his sentence for another crime that conflicts with/precludes the murder charge. In this case, the shooter has already been convicted of attempted murder and released after serving his time. That crime isn't compatible with murder - if he is convicted of murder, then he must have been wrongly convicted of attempted murder.

 

[Orleander]

So you are implying that any poor, female, black, raped person can become famous and rich with their own daytime syndicated talk show - it only they have enough 'responsibility'?

I'm saying you don't get to blame your past for preying on society. You have to take responsibility for your actions. He chose to do everything he did. Oprah chose her life, he chose his.

Thin and pale, Barnes told visitors he had loving parents and siblings who did well in life. He said that he, however, was a thrill-seeker who made bad decisions.

He often acknowledged he wasted his life in prison.

If the cop had been in a coma all these years and now died, I think the murder charge would be very appropriate.
But since the guy was up and moving around, having a life (though drastically altered) I have to wonder if other factors played into his death. The trial will tell I guess.

 

[Tiassa]

Don't break the chain?

Why? If this copper had died from complications one day after being shot, I have no doubt you'd hold the gunman liable for his murder.

Apparently there is a cut-off point at some point in time. So the question here is: When? And more importantly, why do you refuse to answer?

Because any fixed and firm cutoff point will eventually fail to account for circumstances. Statutes of limitations on sex crimes, for instance, are often inadequate. Abused children can't necessarily put the experience into a coherent narrative in time to prosecute their abusers.

Consider also that lawyers will argue furiously when the victim of a crime is on life support about when and whether that support should be disconnected.

All I'm saying is that to fix a firm period would bring disastrous complications.

Umm, relevance?

If he was in such bad shape, why did they discharge him from the hospital? Negligence on the part of the doctors and hospital would break the chain.

But yes, I do agree that the bicyclist should be held accountable for your friends death, if he does indeed die from wounds which were brought about by the accident. I fail to see why 'time' can absolve murder.

And that seems to be the point at which we fundamentally disagree. What if my friend, or in this case, the cop, failed to undertake some part of his rehabilitation that might have affected the decline? Would that affect the chain? Now throw in more general considerations about the cost of health care and therapy. It becomes rather quite messy. In order to establish that the suspect is alone responsible for causing the death, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that have to be accounted for.

 

[mountainhare]

Tiassa:

Because any fixed and firm cutoff point will eventually fail to account for circumstances. Abused children can't necessarily put the experience into a coherent narrative in time to prosecute their abusers.

So essentially, you can't set explicit criteria for how long a criminal remains liable?

Your comment regarding sexual abuse of children is interesting, because it seems to contradict your stance on the 'shot copper' issue. Apparently you feel that child molesterors can be held accountable for crimes that they may have committed possibly decades ago. Why does this mindset apply to molesterors, but not murderers?

If he was in such bad shape, why did they discharge him from the hospital?

He was an invalid being given 24 hours care in a nursing home. He wasn't just tossed out on the street to fend for himself, as you seem to believe.
Added to which, you can't keep a disabled individual in hospital for complications which are 'likely' to arise. Such a scenario is idiotic, especially given that the U.S health system is heavily privatized.

Either way, whether he was discharged or not remains irrelevant. The issue would be moot if he hadn't been shot to begin with.

And that seems to be the point at which we fundamentally disagree. What if my friend, or in this case, the cop, failed to undertake some part of his rehabilitation that might have affected the decline? Would that affect the chain? Now throw in more general considerations about the cost of health care and therapy.

Once again, all this would be moot if the cop had not been shot. If you initiate a chain of events with reasonably foreseeable consequences (eg. shooting someone is likely to kill them, even a 4 year old knows this), then you should be held accountable for said consequences.
If speedy and diligent medical intervention happens to prevent your victim's death, then you ought to consider yourself lucky. If the victim happens to die due to medical negligence, then tough shit for you. The doctors aren't there to cover your ass.

 

[Tiassa]

Your comment regarding sexual abuse of children is interesting, because it seems to contradict your stance on the 'shot copper' issue. Apparently you feel that child molesterors can be held accountable for crimes that they may have committed possibly decades ago. Why does this mindset apply to molesterors, but not murderers?

I live in a state where some sex crimes have a statute of limitations of a year. The leap you're making is the equivalent of saying that apparently you think that if a murderer isn't caught in a year, he ought to go free.

Come on, man. Ooh, here's a good one. It's the same leap as--

Once again, all this would be moot if the cop had not been shot.

--asking that if the doctor treating the cop had been clearly negligent to the point of contributing to the cop's death, would it be a moot point?

If speedy and diligent medical intervention happens to prevent your victim's death, then you ought to consider yourself lucky. If the victim happens to die due to medical negligence, then tough shit for you. The doctors aren't there to cover your ass.

Actually, maybe it's a bigger leap.

This whole part of the discussion is a distraction, though. It seeks only to justify what has been pointed out to be bullshit. If you convict the suspect of murder in this case, would he be wrongly convicted of attempted murder?

As so many on both sides of the aisle are wont to invoke in the whole terrorism fiasco, the United States is a nation of laws. He has been convicted, for this act of shooting this person, of attempted murder. Convicting him of murder is a dangerous proposition. I know that danger is acceptable to people whose primary interest is the ability to punish someone and feel that their suffering is justified, but what's at stake for society really is a bit more than simple bloodlust.

 

[mountainhare]

Tiassa:

The leap you're making is the equivalent of saying that apparently you think that if a murderer isn't caught in a year, he ought to go free.

That's a huge whopping strawman.

My opinion on the matter is that time never absolves guilt. But apparently you don't feel the same way. At some point, you draw a line in the sand, where you claim that the criminal is no longer liable for the consequences of their actions. What I want you to do is set some criteria regarding the issue, because as the matter stands, your opinion on when someone is liable seems a little ho hum.

asking that if the doctor treating the cop had been clearly negligent to the point of contributing to the cop's death, would it be a moot point?

If a doctor's negligence consists of inadequate treatment (eg. fails to adequately suture wounds, fails to prescribe the correct antibiotics), then yes, I believe it is a moot point. But if the doctor actively contributes to the patient's death (eg. stabbing a needle into their heart), then that does complicate the issue.

If you convict the suspect of murder in this case, would he be wrongly convicted of attempted murder?

No. Surely even you can grasp the concept that one can kill someone over a prolonged period of time? Poisoning comes to mind. Comatose individuals don't die immediately either. I'm stunned that I even need to explain this to someone who is probably twice my age.

 

[Orleander]

...Comatose individuals don't die immediately either. ...

This is what I thought as well. But if the man died of an infection due to bad health care, than wouldn't it be either his or his caregivers fault and not the shooter? If an infection made his heart weak, the same could be said.

Was the bullet removed or was it a through and through?