Man Dies 35 Years After Being Shot; Death Ruled Homicide

[Floptical]

A man shot in the back 35 years ago has died of complications from the shooting and his death has been ruled a homicide — but prosecutors fear the trail for the suspect has long ago gone cold. So far, police and prosecutors said they have been unable to find out who shot Craig Buford in the back in Denver in 1973.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477430,00.html

 

[Syrup Beaver]

Sounds like a case for Bones!

 

[Whizzleteets]

i saw "buford" up there, and immediately thought of back to the future 3.

 

[Floptical]

when I saw the story I had to check and make sure I wasn't on the Onion.

 

[zengirl]

Buford, 54, was hospitalized recently and had surgery after doctors determined his colon had ruptured; he died Dec. 29. The Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office ruled Buford's death a homicide, caused by multiple organ failure from complications from his wound.

Sounds to me like a hospital is trying to shake off a malpractice suit

 

[Whizzleteets]

wait, this guy is different from the 1guy1jar guy, right?

 

[Jonny_B]

wasn't this an episode of law and order?

 

[Floptical]

wasn't this an episode of law and order?

Most of the episodes of Law and Order are taken from real stories. They were just ahead of the story this time.

 

[Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski]

That's weird, I'm surprised that they could actually even prosecute somebody so far on. In England we used to have a "Year and a day rule" where you could only get done of rmurder if the vicitim died within a year, this has now been changed to 5 years or so iirc, otherwise it's up to the judges discretion. The chain of causation is far too long and complicated when the initial injury was 35 years old.

 

[shawndavid]

w
t
f

 

[shawndavid]

Does some of this not rest on the subject's disregard for his/her own well being?

 

[b_sinning]

Rupturing colon sounds shitty.

 

[ZRH]

That's weird, I'm surprised that they could actually even prosecute somebody so far on. In England we used to have a "Year and a day rule" where you could only get done of rmurder if the vicitim died within a year, this has now been changed to 5 years or so iirc, otherwise it's up to the judges discretion. The chain of causation is far too long and complicated when the initial injury was 35 years old.

It still applies in most states. Cause of death can be murder even if you cant prosecute someone for it.

 

[Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski]

It still applies in most states. Cause of death can be murder even if you cant prosecute someone for it.

So why bother looking?

 

[Syrup Beaver]

So why bother looking?

Because it's their job.

 

[Sarcasmo]

Homicide simply means that the death was the proximate result of unnatural causes. The complications go back to the initial injury. Even 35 years later.

 

[Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski]

Because it's their job.

Seems kinda stupid. Spending thousands of dollars to maybe, probably not though, find someone just to say "Oh yeah you did shoot him, but there's nothing we can do be on your way. Bye now"

Gettid?

 

[Syrup Beaver]

Seems kinda stupid. Spending thousands of dollars to maybe, probably not though, find someone just to say "Oh yeah you did shoot him, but there's nothing we can do be on your way. Bye now"

Gettid?

You're being entirely too logical.

 

[Sarcasmo]

England has a statute of limitations on murder?

 

[Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski]

Well you could certainly convict someone for a murder that happened 35 years ago, for an assault that led to a 'murder' happening 35 years later you couldn't. I would be very, very much surprised if you could do that in the US seeing as our laws are very similar with regards to murder and the basic intents/criteria/causation/forseeable tests etc.