Thursday, August 23, 2007
The post I have been working on for the last few days is coming hard so I am going to shift a bit and point up something I saw in the Star Tribune today.
In 1966, Burglar William Barnes shot Rookie Policeman Walter Barclay. Barclay was severely injured and spent the rest of his life as a paraplegic. Barnes was arrested, convicted and served a prison sentence for the crime.
Barclay recently died and the Bucks County, Pennsylvania coroner ruled his death "resulted from injuries incurred in the shooting". The District Attorney is considering filing murder charges against Barnes.
Is this right? There is no question that Barnes actions were reprehensible. Barnes was also tried, convicted and served a sentence for the original crime. Is 40 years too long to be considered proximate to Barclays death? Is it right for the state to have 2 shots at Barnes for the same crime? How will justice be served here?
This one bothers me.
Posted by mal at 5:10 AM