JW shooting victim refused blood transfusion

[Burris]

Yeah, no. When you commit and act that results in the death of another, with malice (whether direct or transferred), its murder. The "but for" argument fails because "but for" you shooting they would most certainly be alive.

I'm assuming this is california because its in "fresno" but who knows.

You take your victim like you find them. This is the "eggshell plaintiff" or "thin skull" rule. You dont get to second guess your victims.

Go to jail, go directly to jail... do not pass go... do not collect your bologna sandwich...

I'm familiar with the concept or tort, but I was not at all familiar with the legal terms you used - so I did a quick wiki search and found something interesting:

In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted novus actus interveniens.

[church_of_dog]

This is a strange defense.

Nobody has the right to a "perfect" victim.

Maybe somebody won't survive their injuries because they have a heart disease, are newborn, are old and frail, are obese or whatever (including religious in this case). If you put them at risk of dying from your gun shots you cannot blame it on them if they actually do. :cray-cray:

This also reminds me of James Brady, who was shot and seriously injured by James Hinckley during Hinckley's assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

Baker was seriously injured but lived... 33 more years. But when he died last year, his death was ruled a homicide from the 1981 shooting.

[ILoveJellybeans]

This also reminds me of James Brady, who was shot and seriously injured by James Hinckley during Hinckley's assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.

Baker was seriously injured but lived... 33 more years. But when he died last year, his death was ruled a homicide from the 1981 shooting.

How is that possible? If he lived 33 years after being shot, how was that murder? I can understand it being murder if someone was shot and then died a week later in a way that directly relates to their injuries, but 33 years?

[waterandrocks]

I can't imagine this being considered s valid defense. It opens the door to all sorts of other crazy. What if someone who has been shot dies before the paramedics arrive because traffic was bad that day? Are the paramedics somehow to blame?

[polecat]

How is that possible? If he lived 33 years after being shot, how was that murder? I can understand it being murder if someone was shot and then died a week later in a way that directly relates to their injuries, but 33 years?

If the death can be directly tied to the injuries even 33 years later, they can charge the person who caused those injuries with murder.

[church_of_dog]

If the death can be directly tied to the injuries even 33 years later, they can charge the person who caused those injuries with murder.

I realize I didn't make that clear, sorry. Yes, they determined that his death, even so many years later, was a result of those injuries sustained in the shooting.

Of course a million other things could have caused his death in those interim years -- if he had died from being hit by a bus, it wouldn't have tied back to the shooting. But for whatever reason (I don't know the medical details) it was determined that he did die from his injuries, just many years later.

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

What? That's nuts. I do feel bad for the defense team- obviously grasping at straws. And how flipping sad it was over a game?

And please, let's not bring up the Giants- lifelong Rangers fan here :cry:

I will admit I wanted to give someone a Nolan Ryan old man style ass whooping, but that was about it. :nenner:

[Buzzard]

The trial started on the 15th. It should be over by now but I cant find any media on it. Anyone local hear anything?

[CallmeChaCha]

Found this. I guess it's not over yet??? Bonus picture of the side of his face at the link below. :?

Tuesday, May 19, 2015 06:00PM

FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) --

David Quevedo is accused of going into a rage after the 49ers lost Super Bowl XLVII and committing murder. But as we reported last week, his defense blames the victim's religious faith, not the shooting, for his death.

Omar Silva was a Jehovah's Witness, and he refused blood transfusions based on his faith. The doctor who treated him said that hurt his chances of survival, but with the gunshot injuries he suffered, his chances weren't great no matter what.

Omar Silva's murder may have never happened had the San Francisco 49ers won Super Bowl XLVII. But as the Baltimore Ravens celebrated their win, police say David Quevedo went into a tailspin.

"After the game had finished and the 49ers had lost, Mr. Quevedo was upset," said Fresno police homicide detective Antonio Rivera. "He was hitting walls and furniture."

Quevedo got kicked out of a party and wandered around a Central Fresno neighborhood until he ran into Arnold Silva. Witnesses say he started a fight that was broken up by Omar Silva, Arnold's brother. As he left, Quevedo shouted out his gang affiliation and said he'd be back.

"And in the gang world, that's a form of disrespect," said Fresno police officer Manuel Romero. "He had to do something. He had to come back, he had to do something, and in this case he came back with a firearm."

Witnesses say Quevedo came looking for Arnold Silva, but when Omar was the only brother he could find, he unloaded his gun on Omar. Four bullets found the mark, including two to the abdomen.

Trauma surgeons at Community Regional found two holes in Silva's inferior vena cava -- that's the main vein connecting the abdomen to the heart.

A doctor hired by the defense wrote a report saying Silva should've had a 90% chance of surviving if he'd accepted blood transfusions. The surgeon who treated Silva disagreed.

"Those injuries have a mortality of between 40 and 60 percent so having a 90% survival rate is higher than anything I've ever read," said Dr. Victor McCray.

The prosecution rested its case Tuesday. That defense doctor is set to testify next week. And Quevedo himself is still deciding whether to testify in his own defense. He's facing life in prison without parole if he's convicted.

http://abc30.com/news/doctor-doubts-rel ... ng/731692/

[DGayle]

As much as I don't want to say it, I think there's a viable defense to a murder charge since the victim had access to life-saving medical care, and refused it. I do think attempted-murder charges should be treated every bit as seriously as murder though, since the intent was to kill and it's usually only by luck or miracle that the intended person survives.

So I don't think he should get murder, but he should get attempted murder with the penalty being every big as harsh as a murder conviction.

[IronicallyMaeve]

As much as I don't want to say it, I think there's a viable defense to a murder charge since the victim had access to life-saving medical care, and refused it. I do think attempted-murder charges should be treated every bit as seriously as murder though, since the intent was to kill and it's usually only by luck or miracle that the intended person survives.

So I don't think he should get murder, but he should get attempted murder with the penalty being every big as harsh as a murder conviction.

Silva's surgeon said his chances weren't great, even WITH the blood transfusion.

[Burris]

As much as I don't want to say it, I think there's a viable defense to a murder charge since the victim had access to life-saving medical care, and refused it. I do think attempted-murder charges should be treated every bit as seriously as murder though, since the intent was to kill and it's usually only by luck or miracle that the intended person survives.

So I don't think he should get murder, but he should get attempted murder with the penalty being every big as harsh as a murder conviction.

He shot Silva four times. Silva died. That isn't attempted murder; that's successful murder.

[FloraKitty35]

Facial tattoos are never a good idea (unless you are getting permanent make up or are an established tattoo artist like Kat von D).

[CallmeChaCha]

Guilty

http://abc30.com/news/jury-found-david- ... er/745230/

[HarryPotterFan]

Found this. I guess it's not over yet??? Bonus picture of the side of his face at the link below. :?

http://abc30.com/news/doctor-doubts-rel ... ng/731692/

So does that mean the 49s are at fault for losing or are the Ravens at fault for winning?

[CallmeChaCha]

Both? But really it's the victim's fault for bleeding out.