Shouldn't this guy be dead?

T

texas07

New member
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/21/teen.bullet.ap/index.html

Seriously not looking to start a worn out caliber war here... There's no reason 9mm should not have done the job. But man... this guy's one lucky sob.

Furthermore, as much as I'd love to see this guy in jail, I can't believe a judge would issue an order to operate on a person like that. I mean, if it was medically necessary to remove the bullet, and the police were standing there waiting for the bullet, that would be one thing. But a court order to remove stuff from you body! Sheesh! So much for the constitution...
 
maby the bullet came apart on impact, or it was a poor handload, etc. The 9mm is known and proven for good penetration properties so something was probably wrong. Or maby the guy was wearing a kevlar hat :D .
 
so are we saying its ok to get away with attempted murder as long as the evidence lies in your body so the judicial system cant touch it? I say go in and get it
 
I agree there is a 99.99% chance this is the guy who is guilty...even 100%, and the bullet would prove it... but what if, hypothetically, the court ordered this man to undergo surgery to remove it and the bullet didnt match. The court would have just had an innocent man cut open. That's not acceptable. An incorrect search warrant on your house only invades your privacy... this is your body. And it's not that I'm so worried about this lousy thug... but the precedent it sets. This time, there's no doubt. But what about next time?
 
This is more about the legal aspects of the case rather than the handgun used. Let's move over to Legal & Political.
 
The Docs do not want to cut because of the touchy legal issue of a patients right to refuse a procedure. Plus with surgery there is always the chance of something going wrong even if its infetissimal. Does the doctor owe his alliegance to the courts or the patient? What happens if something goes wrong and he dies or suffers serious injury while under the knife. The court can not grant the doctor immunity from a civil suit. Which is sure to happen if the Doc does the procedure. Who is gonna reimburse the Doc for what that is going to cost him?

It even gets worse as if suggested above if the bullet does not match.
 
How would you feel about a judge ordering the surgery on someone they KNOW is innocent, i.e. the son of the suspect who was in the hospital at the time of the crime? I'm sure that we would all agree that forcing surgery on someone we know is innocent is out of the question. Well, the suspect (any suspect) has the same presumption of innocence.
As an historical example, Gov. Connelly had a bullet inside his body that would have gone a long way to solving the most famous murder of the century. No court in the world would have considered ordering him to have it removed against his wishes, this suspect deserves the same.
 
He's in prison for crimes related to the incident. Let him walk on the shooting charges. A conviction obtained by procuring evidence in this manner is not worth the precedent it would set for future cases that might not be so “cut-and-dry”.
 
It makes no sense, for one thing, since there IS NO "soft fatty tissue" in the forehead.... there is a thin layer of skin and fat on top of bone.

And the hippocratic oath would forbid doing something that isn't medically necessary for life or health, particularly when the patient says no. They're gonna have to find a STATE physician/hospital to perform the surgery, under court order directed to a *specific* physician, not a private one.
 
Show the jury the X-rays, and corroborating evidence, and ask them to figure out reasonable doubt as to how else the bullet could have gotten into his head.

This is the choice line in the entire article:

"We know he's not a criminal," she said. "He's a good kid."
Click to expand...

Yeah right.
 
It makes no sense, for one thing, since there IS NO "soft fatty tissue" in the forehead.... there is a thin layer of skin and fat on top of bone.
I read that too and laughed. What soft, fatty tissue of the forehead?

Show the jury the X-rays, and corroborating evidence, and ask them to figure out reasonable doubt as to how else the bullet could have gotten into his head.
Click to expand...

There already is reasonable doubt. He claims to have been shot during a drive-by. There is no way the state can substantiate one claim over the other without examination of the slug itself.

Since Bush said it was a drive-by that resulted in being shot in the head, could the police not get a warrant to remove the bullet for that crime, or does there have to be a complaint filed first by the victim before that could do that? I would think that if they obtained the slug under a different warrant and crosschecked it in their database, they would find that the round did in fact match Olive's gun.

The strange thing here is that if the round was from a drive-by, it would potentially substantiate Bush's claims that he was not shot by Olive and hence not support Olive's story that Bush tried to kill him first.

Yep, these contradictory comments were pretty funny...


Tammie Bush, the teen's mother, disputed allegations her son is a gang member.

"We know he's not a criminal," she said. "He's a good kid."
Click to expand...

Bush admitted taking part in the robbery but not the shooting, police said.
Click to expand...

In fact, this is one of the funnier criminal articles I have read in a while...soft fatty tissue of the forehead my eye.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Maybe he had a head like a coconut? Fine with me if the court orders the bullet removed. Evidence is evidence, whether it's a foot up your colon or just under the skin in your forehead.
 
"A few days later, Bush went to the hospital and told doctors he had been hit by a stray bullet as he sat on a couch in an apartment."

Apparently Bush wants it out also since he went to the hospital. He just does not want police to get it because he is such a good kid.

Convict him on the robbery charge and put him in jail for a long time. The sentence should be about the same. If he wants it out after he is released it looks like it will have to be done in a hospital. Most hospitals will call the police.
 
Waiting to remove the round would make the surgery much more problematic. Should he be convicted of a crime other than the shoot-out, it would be too late, years later, for the surgery, as the bone would likely have encapsulated most of it.

According to the reports, there was no shooting during the robbery. It was after the police had processed the crime scene, and left, that this took place. There should also be some other expended rounds laying about, from both weapons. The gentleman in question has about four different stories circulating, I imagine that such a MENSA member will trip himself up in court quite convincingly.:)
 
Go ahead recon7!

I was going to say, it's probably not the caliber that's the problem, just that the guy didn't double tap him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top