Just hurry up and die you lazy bastard.

\aisle seat, please

I love how they diffused the "unknown" shooter by interjecting a "successful" apprehension of a stabby sort.

The aorta slowly deteriorating? Must have been a painful death.

Ever since William Donald Schaefer left, the whole "do it now" mantra of efficiency has been completely abandoned.

It's really slow. Get out of the way!

The slow knife penetrates the shield.

BigNumber12: [i284.photobucket.com image 160x197]


Did he gain superpowers?

I don't think the ability to not mind if someone cracks your skull open with the butt of a pistol really classifies as a 'super power'

No one can defeat the quad laser!

TheSneakerWhore: I love how they diffused the "unknown" shooter by interjecting a "successful" apprehension of a stabby sort.

Yea, great reporting (again). "Meanwhile, cops did some other stuff."

MythDragon: BigNumber12: [i284.photobucket.com image 160x197]


Did he gain superpowers?

I don't think the ability to not mind if someone cracks your skull open with the butt of a pistol really classifies as a 'super power'

A "situationally-dependant superpower", then.

I knew that Freak on a Leash video was dangerous!

Dammit Willow! Again? Really?

Vernaccus and Bourlor ?

It's too bad the victim wasn't a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist, or he might have survived.




/obvious comment is obvious

Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

Starhawk: The slow knife penetrates the shield.

Were done here.

Baltimore trifecta in play

wanted for questioning

approves of him not dying hastily

/not impressed
//hot like a bullet in the head

Fish in a Barrel: Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

No, and I don't think it has ever been that way. Technicly speaking, you can be charged with murder many years after the fact if it can be proven that the injuries you caused to your victom ultimatly leads to their death.

ATHF, Tony Stark, Dune, farking Ents.

This thread delivers!

Cerebral Knievel: Fish in a Barrel: Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

No, and I don't think it has ever been that way. Technicly speaking, you can be charged with murder many years after the fact if it can be proven that the injuries you caused to your victom ultimatly leads to their death.

I've done a little searching since asking the question. It was a part of English common law, and was a part of most US state laws. It was used successfully as a defense in a Wisconsin case in 2003, for instance. It's largely been abandoned now since medical advances have made it untenable.

kdawg7736: The aorta slowly deteriorating? Must have been a painful death.

No, the aorta doesn't have pain receptors. The death is caused when the deterioration gets to the point to where the wall of the aorta fails and ruptures. Unconsciousness is almost immediate, since blood pressure falls to zero. Death takes only a few minutes as all the blood bleeds out into the abdomen.

Fish in a Barrel: Cerebral Knievel: Fish in a Barrel: Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

No, and I don't think it has ever been that way. Technicly speaking, you can be charged with murder many years after the fact if it can be proven that the injuries you caused to your victom ultimatly leads to their death.

I've done a little searching since asking the question. It was a part of English common law, and was a part of most US state laws. It was used successfully as a defense in a Wisconsin case in 2003, for instance. It's largely been abandoned now since medical advances have made it untenable.

This. Part of proving murder is proving causation - that it was the defendant's intentional act or omission that caused the death of the victim. Back in the day, the rationale was that if the victim lived more than a year and a day from the event/act/omission (let's say a shooting) that that was enough time for enough stuff to happen that you could no longer conclusively say that it was the shooting, or the effects of the shooting, that resulted in the victim's death. As medical science has advanced, we can trace causation more reliably over a longer period of time and as a result, the year and a day standard is generally falling out of favor.

BigNumber12: [i284.photobucket.com image 160x197]


Did he gain superpowers?

Oh hey, I was going to reference him! Good show old bean!

Renard: one of the most disappointing Bond villains ever. Not fearing death anymore ought to make one more badass instead of sad sack.

No, not the slowest. I won't even claim this is the "slowest," but here are the quick facts of what could be a much longer story:

My uncle was shot by a German soldier at Anzio, Italy, in 1944. Army doctors in the field, using the x-ray technology of the day, saw that the bullet was resting against his heart and decided to send him to a stateside Army hospital.

In the States, doctors decided to leave the bullet because, given the state of medicine in 1944, they were afraid it would kill him to try to remove the bullet.

One day, sitting at home, he began coughing up blood. By the time they got him to the hospital, he was dead. X-rays at the hospital showed the bullet had shifted and nicked his heart ... 1n 1992, 48 years after he was shot.

In a bit of "over the top," the preacher at his funeral called him "Hitler's final victim."

/Just watched it last night to fill time.

I think McDonald's kills faster than that.

Wasilla Hillbilly: [images.wikia.com image 548x363]
wanted for questioning

Came to say this. Leaving grateful that somebody else is doing the heavy lifting around here.

I have seen a number of stories like this over the years and they all seem to be from Baltimore.

/used to work there back in the day
/it was kinda scary even then

JackieRabbit: kdawg7736: The aorta slowly deteriorating? Must have been a painful death.

No, the aorta doesn't have pain receptors. The death is caused when the deterioration gets to the point to where the wall of the aorta fails and ruptures. Unconsciousness is almost immediate, since blood pressure falls to zero. Death takes only a few minutes as all the blood bleeds out into the abdomen.

You forgot to mention that a lot of people have faulty aortas, and you simply won't know that you're about to die. It'll just go black instantly.

Someone reading this right now might have a faulty aorta, ready to burst. The slightest stress could pop it.

Even you.

theMagni: JackieRabbit: kdawg7736: The aorta slowly deteriorating? Must have been a painful death.

No, the aorta doesn't have pain receptors. The death is caused when the deterioration gets to the point to where the wall of the aorta fails and ruptures. Unconsciousness is almost immediate, since blood pressure falls to zero. Death takes only a few minutes as all the blood bleeds out into the abdomen.

You forgot to mention that a lot of people have faulty aortas, and you simply won't know that you're about to die. It'll just go black instantly.

Someone reading this right now might have a faulty aorta, ready to burst. The slightest stress could pop it.

Even you.

Thanks mister sunshi

Sure hope his name wasn't Roy Hobbs.

Every bullet has someone's name on it. The trick is avoiding the one with yours.

Meh, this is an administrative thing. We get 5 or 6 of these types of homicides every year.

Crotchrocket Slim: BigNumber12: [i284.photobucket.com image 160x197]


Did he gain superpowers?

Oh hey, I was going to reference him! Good show old bean!

Renard: one of the most disappointing Bond villains ever. Not fearing death anymore ought to make one more badass instead of sad sack.

Most definitely this. Robert Carlyle's character on Trainspotting would have dispatch that gob right quick

cantsleep: theMagni: JackieRabbit: kdawg7736: The aorta slowly deteriorating? Must have been a painful death.

No, the aorta doesn't have pain receptors. The death is caused when the deterioration gets to the point to where the wall of the aorta fails and ruptures. Unconsciousness is almost immediate, since blood pressure falls to zero. Death takes only a few minutes as all the blood bleeds out into the abdomen.

You forgot to mention that a lot of people have faulty aortas, and you simply won't know that you're about to die. It'll just go black instantly.

Someone reading this right now might have a faulty aorta, ready to burst. The slightest stress could pop it.

Even you.

Thanks mister sunshia

this made me laugh....

The article is published today, the dude died in July and, as a footnote, somebody was arrested for a stabbing that happened Wednesday. Are most news sites adopting this whole "cram everything into one article" approach to delivery?

Came for Mooninite Quad laser referaces , not leaving disappoint.

Also 20 years is no wheres near slowest. There was one of the victims of the Texas clock tower shooter that died in the last couple of years and that was nearly 50 years ago.

Also I personally knew a guy that was a sheriffs deputy back around the turn of the 20th century( I think it was like 1898 or 1899 that he was actually shot) that died in 1985 from complications of a wound he'd received like 85ish years earlier (he was like 107 when he died in 1985). I'm pretty sure that is the record.

devildog123: Amateur. It took 50 years for this guy to die from the bullet that killed him:

Joshua Laurence Chamberlain

You beat me to it! I was going to mention this.

tulax: Fish in a Barrel: Cerebral Knievel: Fish in a Barrel: Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

No, and I don't think it has ever been that way. Technicly speaking, you can be charged with murder many years after the fact if it can be proven that the injuries you caused to your victom ultimatly leads to their death.

I've done a little searching since asking the question. It was a part of English common law, and was a part of most US state laws. It was used successfully as a defense in a Wisconsin case in 2003, for instance. It's largely been abandoned now since medical advances have made it untenable.

This. Part of proving murder is proving causation - that it was the defendant's intentional act or omission that caused the death of the victim. Back in the day, the rationale was that if the victim lived more than a year and a day from the event/act/omission (let's say a shooting) that that was enough time for enough stuff to happen that you could no longer conclusively say that it was the shooting, or the effects of the shooting, that resulted in the victim's death. As medical science has advanced, we can trace causation more reliably over a longer period of time and as a result, the year and a day standard is generally falling out of favor.

And.. as a result, you can be charged many years after the fact. There was an article here on Fark a few months ago about a gentleman who, after serving a 20 year sentence for atempted murder, was arrested again on murder charges after the victim finally did die of his injuries.

This, of course spurred a rather spurious debate on the matters of double jeopardy.

plong: It's too bad the victim wasn't a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist, or he might have survived.

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 200x325]

/obvious comment is obvious

I came armed with a less-obvious comment

Oldiron_79:

Also I personally knew a guy that was a sheriffs deputy back around the turn of the 20th century( I think it was like 1898 or 1899 that he was actually shot) that died in 1985 from complications of a wound he'd received like 85ish years earlier (he was like 107 when he died in 1985). I'm pretty sure that is the record.

Every time I hear the Johnny Cash song gunfighter ballad I think of the old guy.

Cerebral Knievel: Fish in a Barrel: Isn't it usually the legal standard that if the victim survives a year and a day past the wounding it's not technically a murder? Or is that no longer used.

No, and I don't think it has ever been that way. Technicly speaking, you can be charged with murder many years after the fact if it can be proven that the injuries you caused to your victom ultimatly leads to their death.

Yes, it was an English common law rule, and many states in the US adopted it, although most have altered or abolished it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_and_a_day_rule