Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Man Charged With Murder, 41 Years After Shooting Cop

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

Man Charged With Murder, 41 Years After Shooting Cop

Old 02-29-08, 09:51 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Somerville, MA
Posts: 3,879
Man Charged With Murder, 41 Years After Shooting Cop

link

Man faces murder trial for 1966 shooting

By Jon Hurdle Thu Feb 28, 11:21 AM ET

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania man who shot and wounded a police officer more than 41 years ago will stand trial for his murder following the officer's death last year, a judge ruled on Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Prosecutors say the victim, Walter Barclay, died of injuries directly linked to the 1966 shooting.

William Barnes, 71, who already served around 20 years in prison for the shooting and other offenses, was rearrested last year and charged with murder following Barclay's death.

Prosecutors say a urinary tract infection that afflicted Barclay was a direct result of his paralysis. That in turn was caused when Barnes shot him in the spine during an attempted break-in on November 27, 1966.

Judge Bradley Moss of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sided with prosecutors, although he noted that he had not found any other case in the United States in which a suspect had been charged with murder so long after causing an injury.

"It seems to me the Commonwealth has met its burden in this matter," Moss said after a two-hour hearing. He set a trial date of March 19.

Defense attorney Bobby Hoof said prosecutors failed to prove the police officer had not died from intervening causes between the shooting and his death in August 2007 at age 64.

He argued that Barclay had been involved in two car accidents after the shooting and also fell out of his wheelchair, all of which could have contributed to his death.

Medical examiners did not perform an autopsy and had not ruled out possibilities he might have died from other causes, Hoof said.

Medical Examiner Ian Hood told the court that an autopsy had not been carried out because medical records clearly indicated Barclay died from the urinary tract infection that stemmed from his paralysis. He reported the cause of death to be homicide.

(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Alan Elsner)
I got to admit, this is kinda weird. The guy was an asshole, he shot a cop, and should have been jailed for life back then. I have heard of this before, but never when the crime had occurred that long ago. I have problem with this guy being charged with murder though, if he had never shot the cop, then the cop could have lived a full life. This guy should never be free again. I don't see why he did not even get more time originally.
dieinafire is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 10:05 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
this will get tossed on appeal
al_bundy is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 10:17 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 4,286
Originally Posted by al_bundy
this will get tossed on appeal
agreed
jadasion is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 10:28 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,761
Originally Posted by al_bundy
this will get tossed on appeal
If the judge is smart, he'll grant a directed verdict before that.
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 11:17 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
There used to be a common law rule that prevented things like this if the victim didn't die within a year and a day from the incident. I'm not sure which states still have that rule.
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 11:37 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
islandclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,059
ord<br
"That's a old crime, man! They ain't got enough room for all the ******s running around killing people today, now how are they gonna find room for you?"
islandclaws is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 02:49 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
that is a wild case...

i don't mind them going after the guy though...
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 07:14 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the 870
Posts: 21,140
Originally Posted by al_bundy
this will get tossed on appeal
hopefully this guy's salad is the only thing tossed
Bacon is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 09:00 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,461
Double Jeopardy. US Constitution. Fifth Amendment.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 09:08 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,458
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Double Jeopardy. US Constitution. Fifth Amendment.
It's not double jeaprody though. The original charge was probably attempterd murder. The new charge is murder.

Wasn't there a movie out recently like this with Anthony Hopkins. The one where he shoots his wife. He was found not guilty of attemted murder; and then he had the machines taken off of his wife. Then He got charged with murder.
movieguru is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 09:51 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by movieguru
It's not double jeaprody though. The original charge was probably attempterd murder. The new charge is murder.

Wasn't there a movie out recently like this with Anthony Hopkins. The one where he shoots his wife. He was found not guilty of attemted murder; and then he had the machines taken off of his wife. Then He got charged with murder.
Doesnt matter. You cannot be charged for the same crime twice. The act of the shooting was the crime, so this is illegal.
Layziebones is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 10:18 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,461
Originally Posted by movieguru
It's not double jeaprody though. The original charge was probably attempterd murder. The new charge is murder.

Wasn't there a movie out recently like this with Anthony Hopkins. The one where he shoots his wife. He was found not guilty of attemted murder; and then he had the machines taken off of his wife. Then He got charged with murder.
This is a Swiss Cheese argument by the local prosecutor. The judge is probably related in some way to the deceased cop and let his unlogical side go unbound.

The prosecution has to prove, beyond a doubt, the shooting caused the UTI, which caused the death of the officer.

We know UTIs are common amongst the elderly, because as you age, your body deteriorates and one of the most popular organs which does, is the urinary tract and surrounding areas. So, the prosecution can't say a UTI was indicative of the shooting because other elderly individuals don't have UTIs. Ee know the elderly have a high rate of UTIs. And we go from there on what causes UTIs in the elderly.

Other than a person being shot 41 years ago, the most common causes for a UTI are:

1) Being in a nursing home
2) Bowel incontinence
3) Foley catheter
4) Lack of fluids
5) Limited or no movement

So, the prosecution better have these points and others covered.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 10:37 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,902
This has some similarities to what happened to one of Charles Whitman's victims. David Gunby was shot by Charles Whitman (along with many others) on August 1st, 1966, but survived the shooting. He required lifeling dialysis as a result of his injuries, and when he finally died, his death was ruled a homicide-- in 2001, 35 years after he was shot. link

In November 2001 David Gunby intentionally ceased the thrice-weekly dialysis treatments he had been enduring for 27 years. Gunby had been wounded back in 1966. One of Whitman’s well-aimed bullets had damaged his only functioning kidney. When Gunby expired, his death was ruled a homicide, adding one more casualty to the toll of that grim August day.

Whitman was killed on the day of the shooting, so there was nobody to charge in 2001 for Gunby's "murder."
Dave7393 is offline  
Old 02-29-08, 11:55 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,461
And this type of legal and criminal categorizing is a dangerous precedence and practice.

While I feel sorry for Dunby and can't fathom the pain and suffering he endured, he committed suicide.

Currently, there is no term for someone who almost kills another, and then the other finishes the job. So, it's a suicide. And if anyone challenged it as such, it would be ruled a suicide. It's more of a political statement, than anything. And nobody wants to challenge a political statement against a victim.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-01-08, 07:01 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,458
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
This is a Swiss Cheese argument by the local prosecutor. The judge is probably related in some way to the deceased cop and let his unlogical side go unbound.

The prosecution has to prove, beyond a doubt, the shooting caused the UTI, which caused the death of the officer.

We know UTIs are common amongst the elderly, because as you age, your body deteriorates and one of the most popular organs which does, is the urinary tract and surrounding areas. So, the prosecution can't say a UTI was indicative of the shooting because other elderly individuals don't have UTIs. Ee know the elderly have a high rate of UTIs. And we go from there on what causes UTIs in the elderly.

Other than a person being shot 41 years ago, the most common causes for a UTI are:

1) Being in a nursing home
2) Bowel incontinence
3) Foley catheter
4) Lack of fluids
5) Limited or no movement

So, the prosecution better have these points and others covered.
I don't think the case will go anywhere at all; but it will be interesting to see how it unfolds
movieguru is offline  
Old 03-01-08, 07:05 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,458
This reminds me of a case I heard on the news about 5-10 years ago. A guy was drunk driving, hit another car. The person in the other car was critically injured but could have been saved. The injured person was of some religious faith that didn't allow blood transfusions that she needed to save her life. the doctors testified that she would have easily lived if she got the transfusion but she refused it and later died. The guy was then charged with manslaughter. I never heard how this one turned out.
movieguru is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 01:14 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
This is a Swiss Cheese argument by the local prosecutor. The judge is probably related in some way to the deceased cop and let his unlogical side go unbound.

The prosecution has to prove, beyond a doubt, the shooting caused the UTI, which caused the death of the officer.

We know UTIs are common amongst the elderly, because as you age, your body deteriorates and one of the most popular organs which does, is the urinary tract and surrounding areas. So, the prosecution can't say a UTI was indicative of the shooting because other elderly individuals don't have UTIs. Ee know the elderly have a high rate of UTIs. And we go from there on what causes UTIs in the elderly.

Other than a person being shot 41 years ago, the most common causes for a UTI are:

1) Being in a nursing home
2) Bowel incontinence
3) Foley catheter
4) Lack of fluids
5) Limited or no movement

So, the prosecution better have these points and others covered.
I'd have to say that all of your "other" reasons are actually the same reason that the prosecution is focusing on. 64 is not elderly. This guy most likely died directly as a result of being paralyzed. If I were on the jury I would accept that argument.

You insinuate that the judge must have an unhealthy, biased interest in this case. Your protests in the other direction kind of make me wonder about you. Did you or someone you care about injure someone who might eventually die from those injuries so that is why you are afraid of this case setting a precedent?
foggy is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 01:52 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,461
Originally Posted by foggy
I'd have to say that all of your "other" reasons are actually the same reason that the prosecution is focusing on. 64 is not elderly. This guy most likely died directly as a result of being paralyzed. If I were on the jury I would accept that argument.
Thanks to Voir Dire, I seriously doubt you would be a member of the jury.

Originally Posted by foggy
You insinuate that the judge must have an unhealthy, biased interest in this case. Your protests in the other direction kind of make me wonder about you. Did you or someone you care about injure someone who might eventually die from those injuries so that is why you are afraid of this case setting a precedent?
Did you just start taking Psych 101 classes at a local community college? Seriously, I'm just curious where you're coming from.

Answer me this.

Suppose an employee of the nursing home he was at, accidentally left the police officer on the edge of a flight of stairs, and consequently, the wheelchair of the police officer rolled down the flight of stairs and the officer died from having a broken neck and blocked airway.

Would you say Barnes' (the shooter) was 100% responsible for Barclay's death at the nursing home?

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 03-02-08 at 02:00 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 01:54 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by foggy
I'd have to say that all of your "other" reasons are actually the same reason that the prosecution is focusing on. 64 is not elderly. This guy most likely died directly as a result of being paralyzed. If I were on the jury I would accept that argument.

You insinuate that the judge must have an unhealthy, biased interest in this case. Your protests in the other direction kind of make me wonder about you. Did you or someone you care about injure someone who might eventually die from those injuries so that is why you are afraid of this case setting a precedent?
This statement is pretty much the same as the old "You're questioning the witchhunt, therefore you must be a witch" canard.

Just because one questions a perceived injustice doesn't mean they stand to "profit" if that injustice is rectified.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 02:58 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
Thanks to Voir Dire, I seriously doubt you would be a member of the jury.



Did you just start taking Psych 101 classes at a local community college? Seriously, I'm just curious where you're coming from.

Answer me this.

Suppose an employee of the nursing home he was at, accidentally left the police officer on the edge of a flight of stairs, and consequently, the wheelchair of the police officer rolled down the flight of stairs and the officer died from having a broken neck and blocked airway.

Would you say Barnes' (the shooter) was 100% responsible for Barclay's death at the nursing home?
I'm always curious as to where you're coming from, since you always seem to have to have so many "unusual" ideas, your mind always seems to be completely made up on every issue and you think that you know better than everyone else.

I'd bet that I could get seated on that jury if I were called. Too bad that I live in Massachusetts. I don't think that you quite understand how "Voir dire" works. Any state that I have had experience with allows a limited number of dismissals for no cause and an unlimited number (within reason, of course) of dismissals for cause. What would the cause be?

I'll admit that I was applying a bit of basic psychology to your statements because it seemed like I was dealing with a pretty basic brain.
foggy is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 02:59 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 469
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
This statement is pretty much the same as the old "You're questioning the witchhunt, therefore you must be a witch" canard.

Just because one questions a perceived injustice doesn't mean they stand to "profit" if that injustice is rectified.
What injustice are you speaking of? The only injustice that I can see in this case is that the shooter didn't get a longer sentence back when.
foggy is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 03:23 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,461
Originally Posted by foggy
I'll admit that I was applying a bit of basic psychology to your statements because it seemed like I was dealing with a pretty basic brain.
Well, you certainly did answer my Psych 101 inquiry, but you didn't answer my queston regarding who was to be charged for the death of the officer in my example.

The employee of the nursing home or the shooter?

And I'm curious once again. Are you for or against the death penalty.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 03-02-08 at 03:28 PM.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-02-08, 05:48 PM
  #23  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,141
Originally Posted by foggy
I'll admit that I was applying a bit of basic psychology to your statements because it seemed like I was dealing with a pretty basic brain.
Mod note: In case you missed it somehow there are rules here, the first one of which is

http://www.dvdtalk.com/legal.html
ABSOLUTELY NO:
• Posting of personal attacks against another member, moderator or administrator in the forum


and your comment above certainly fits this. These rules are in place to maintain a forum in which people are free to share/criticize ideas but when it starts to get personal like this it only degrades/sidetracks the conversation and pretty soon all you have is a bunch of posts of people insulting each other. If you can't refrain from such a posting style please find somewhere to post.
nemein is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.