PA - Officer Walter Barclay, 64, dies 40 years after Philly shooting, 19 Aug 2007

[Jen_in_Indy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/04/old.police.shooting.ap/index.html

From CNN article:
William Barnes, 71, was charged with murder on Monday, two weeks after former Officer Walter T. Barclay died from an infection at the age of 64. The Bucks County Medical Examiner's Officer ruled the death a homicide, saying it stemmed from a gunshot wound Barclay received when Barnes shot him in 1966.
District Attorney Lynn Abraham scheduled a news conference for Tuesday to discuss the case. The murder charge was listed in court records dated Monday.
Barclay, a rookie officer, was shot November 27, 1966, while trying to stop the burglary of a beauty shop in the city's East Oak Lane section. He was left a paraplegic and eventually died last month.
Barnes, who served a 10- to 20-year attempted murder sentence, has been living in a halfway house and working at a supermarket.
Several people who know Barnes said he has tried to atone by talking publicly about his regret and the lives he ruined.
But Rosalyn Harrison, Barclay's sister, said Barnes should serve time for murder. She said her brother suffered for decades from problems related to the shooting, including pneumonia, bedsores and recurrent infections.
Barclay never expressed bitterness about his fate and only mentioned his shooter once, she said.
Homicide detectives said Barnes was in custody. It was unclear whether he had an attorney.


Isn't this a bit of double jeopardy. I don't want to sympathize with someone who shot a police officer, but the man served time for attempted murder. Is it right that he's now being charged with murder in the same case?

 

[Marie]

The crime of murder didn't happen until the police officer died from his injury. I'm sure Barnes can receive credit for his time served... and hopefully more time. Atonement and regret don't negate murder.

 

[Meduza]

I read about this a couple of days ago and figured once it hit WS there would be a huge debate over the story. Guess everyone is afraid to voice opinions and just want this story shoved under the rug.

I'm sorry if I tick anyone off, but I just don't think this is right and will open the door for all kinds of similar bullcrap and that is exactly what it is, and will eventually be a matter of time before it starts effecting everyday folks.

Need examples...I live alone and one night I am awaken by a noise and grab a gun. I shoot a real intruder and get off with some law made to protect me. LEts say 15 years down the road the fellow I shot suddenly dies and his family comes forward and makes a similar statement. He had suffered from years worth of health problems do to being shot and it was my fault, therefore I am to be prosecuted for murder now. I can see this same tactic being used for folks hurt in car accidents too. I'm on my way to work and have been giving a ride to a fellow worker. It's dark out and I swerve to miss several deer that are in the road. I lose control, roll the vehicle and we both are life flighted for medical care. My friend now becomes a paraplegic for the rest of their life and continues to fight health issues on and off until they die 20 years later. Look out, here come the manslaughter charges.

Her brother suffered for decades from problems related to the shooting, including pneumonia, bedsores and recurrent infections.

Personally, it looks to me like he wasn't receiving proper medical care, but on the flip side, I think it should be up to the prosecutor to PROVE that all of this mans health issues were in fact related to the actual shooting and I'm just not buying it.

 

[Amraann]

Meduza in both scenarios you did not do something illegal to harm someone.

This man however shot a police officer during the commission of a crime.

That all being said I think it is wrong to charge him a second time for the same crime.

 

[SewingDeb]

The crime of murder didn't happen until the police officer died from his injury. I'm sure Barnes can receive credit for his time served... and hopefully more time. Atonement and regret don't negate murder.

I agree with you Marie.

 

[AfterMidnight]

The crime of murder didn't happen until the police officer died from his injury. I'm sure Barnes can receive credit for his time served... and hopefully more time. Atonement and regret don't negate murder.

Had the officer died at the time of the shooting it would have been murder - forty years later it is an act of God.

If we want to follow this lunacy all the way, they should arrest his mother for birthing him because in so doing, she condemned him to eventual death.

On the other side of the coin, can the families shot by police bring suit when they die?

I believe this is a can of worms that needs resealing once and for all. Ludicrous is the word that comes to mind, although idiotic and vengeful have also flashed by. Sounds like we're getting closer and closer to a police state.

 

[sherri79]

this is not a new law. i have read of a parent that beat a child and the child died a year later. the parent was charged and found guilty of abuse for beating the child who was in a coma. a year later the child died from the beating having never left the coma and the parent was charged with murder and found guilty. we often see people charged with multiple crimes for 1 event. a man beats his wife to death and he can be charged with assault and murder. most the time all the charges come at once. it is hard to prove the act of murder in this case due to all the time that has passed. if they can prove the man died because he was shot i am ok with this. the problem is proving he was ill because of the shooting and not old age.

my example is a man walks into a store and shoots the clerk in the head. the bullet is in the brain and can not be removed but the clerk lives. they charge the guy with attempted murder. 5 years later the bullet shifts and the clerk drops dead. god did not place the bullet in his brain. he was killed by the man with the gun 5 years ago he just died more slowly than normal. my only problem with this case is proving what caused the infection that killed the police officer. if you can prove the infection was caused by the shooting and not something he may have gotten anyway i have no problem with this case.

off topic here but doing it anyway. why do people do less time for attempted murder than for murder? if the shooters aim sucks or the victim get a great doctor we reward the shooter. i'm sorry but they tried to kill someone. i just dont get why we reward the "attempted" killer because he was unlucky or the victim was lucky.

 

[sherri79]

Had the officer died at the time of the shooting it would have been murder - forty years later it is an act of God.

If we want to follow this lunacy all the way, they should arrest his mother for birthing him because in so doing, she condemned him to eventual death.

On the other side of the coin, can the families shot by police bring suit when they die?

I believe this is a can of worms that needs resealing once and for all. Ludicrous is the word that comes to mind, although idiotic and vengeful have also flashed by. Sounds like we're getting closer and closer to a police state.

i'm not sure i understand your post.

why would arrest of his mom relate? she did not shoot anybody. she committed no crime. shooting people is a crime giving birth is not.

a family of a person shot by police can bring suit if the officer shot him illegally. this man shot someone to get away with another crime.

 

[AmandaBrown23]

I agree with Amrann, I think he served the time and shouldnt be tried again. Sorry if that makes anyone mad. I know what he did was wrong and if he was never really punished then yeah I would say lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[AfterMidnight]

"why would arrest of his mom relate? she did not shoot anybody. she committed no crime. shooting people is a crime giving birth is not."

If she hadn't given birth to him, he wouldn't have died. Sometimes a little imagination is a good thing - sometimes it isn't, like in this case. No matter when the officer died, the guy would still have been charged with murder.

If this is taken all the way and the "perp" is convicted, then I believe the relatives of anyone/everyone who has ever been unjustly harmed by the police has the right to bring that officer(s) up on murder charges when that person dies.

Do you see and understand where I'm going with this?

 

[sherri79]

"why would arrest of his mom relate? she did not shoot anybody. she committed no crime. shooting people is a crime giving birth is not."

If she hadn't given birth to him, he wouldn't have died. Sometimes a little imagination is a good thing - sometimes it isn't, like in this case. No matter when the officer died, the guy would still have been charged with murder.

If this is taken all the way and the "perp" is convicted, then I believe the relatives of anyone/everyone who has ever been unjustly harmed by the police has the right to bring that officer(s) up on murder charges when that person dies.

Do you see and understand where I'm going with this?

with the mother i dont. she still committed no crime. i'm not asking for the shooter to see the future. how would mom know she was giving birth to a killer? the shooter would know pulling the trigger while pointing a gun at someone can kill them.

as for the police shooting then yes if the police murder a innocent person then they should be charged. if it can be proven the shooting is the cause of death then why not? if the shooting is self defence or defence of another i would not expect the police to be charged any more than i would expect a regular joe to be charged.

 

[Marie]

Attempted murder is only the planning of a murder and acts taken towards it, not the actual killing, which is the murder.

Double Jeopardy: There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.

Exceptions to double jeopardy: Double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment. Double jeopardy is not implicated for separate offenses or in separate jurisdictions arising from the same act.

I'm sure Barnes' attorney's will have fun arguing double jeopardy.

And AfterMidnight, this is clearly a case where the victim died because 'the perp' shot him and caused ultimately fatal injuries. It would not apply to just anyone who has ever been harmed by the police, or anyone else, and then later dies.... unless that death was caused by the previous harm. Shooting someone who recovers from the gunshot but later dies from something else is completely different than shooting someone who dies from complications of that gunshot.

 

[sherri79]

Attempted murder is only the planning of a murder and acts taken towards it, not the actual killing, which is the murder.

Double Jeopardy: There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.

Exceptions to double jeopardy: Double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment. Double jeopardy is not implicated for separate offenses or in separate jurisdictions arising from the same act.

I'm sure Barnes' attorney's will have fun arguing double jeopardy.

And AfterMidnight, this is clearly a case where the victim died because 'the perp' shot him and caused ultimately fatal injuries. It would not apply to just anyone who has ever been harmed by the police, or anyone else, and then later dies.... unless that death was caused by the previous harm. Shooting someone who recovers from the gunshot but later dies from something else is completely different than shooting someone who dies from complications of that gunshot.

nice post. if the police officer had died from cancer it would not result in charges.

 

[Amraann]

I think his attorney has a good argument for Double Jeapardy.

"protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense."

 

[SewingDeb]

I think his attorney has a good argument for Double Jeapardy.

"protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense."

The difference is that one charge is attempted murder and the other is actual murder. There can be several charges for the same crime as we have seen before. I'll have to think on this one.

 

[AfterMidnight]

Dying FORTY YEARS later is NOT a direct result.

 

[Marie]

In Cold Blog

On a winter night in 1966, 23-year-old rookie cop Walter Barclay (pictured at left) was shot several times as he investigated a late-night burglary at a Philadelphia beauty salon.

Continued at link.

 

[Filly]

A jury acquitted this guy.

Officer Barclay I am sorry you suffered. I pray you are at peace now.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/fron...er_in_1966_police_shooting.html#axzz0owFX2GQv

 

[kbl8201]

im not gonna feel bad that they acquitted him. at most you might say this was voluntary manslaughter........and he already served time for attempted murder which probably would be about the same.

i think the fact they released him and let him live at a halfway house and have a job that its kinda pathetic that they would go after him cause the officer died.

id also say that if the victim wasnt a police officer, they wouldnt even have tried to go after him for murder 40 years after the fact.

 

[kbl8201]

i guess im also a little confused as to why hes being held, still, on alleged parole violations. he had a cell phone and car keys on him when arrested for the 'murder.' thats a parole violation?

i guess i shouldnt be suprised, in a country where you can be a rso who kidnaps an 11 year old, keeps her captive for 2 decades, and have parole officers visit your house every month, but thats not a parole violation. and this is.