Docs to Shooting Victim: Come Back Monday

[RPB]

So, if he hadn't been up on a ladder ...

More than 500000 people a year are treated for ladder-related injuries in the U.S, and approximately 300 people in the U.S. die ...
http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overvi ... _accidents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ban ladders

[alexrex20]

I did notice the deformation of the bullet. I wasn't sure if it was the bullet or an artifact of the x-ray. Overall you did a great analysis of the crime. You should be a cop.

God help us if cops and/or investigators are allowed to "solve" crimes by analyzing a news article and viewing an x-ray...

[WildBill]

I did notice the deformation of the bullet. I wasn't sure if it was the bullet or an artifact of the x-ray. Overall you did a great analysis of the crime. You should be a cop.

God help us if cops and/or investigators are allowed to "solve" crimes by analyzing a news article and viewing an x-ray...

Alexrex20 - I was just kidding Excaliber. He is a retired police captain.

[Excaliber]

I did notice the deformation of the bullet. I wasn't sure if it was the bullet or an artifact of the x-ray. Overall you did a great analysis of the crime. You should be a cop.

God help us if cops and/or investigators are allowed to "solve" crimes by analyzing a news article and viewing an x-ray...

I wasn't trying to "solve a crime" as in identify a suspect, develop probable cause to arrest him, and amass enough evidence to convict him.

I was simply trying to find a fact based explanation for why the guy on the ladder wasn't dead after apparently being shot in the back of the neck with a .45, which, for those of us who have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds, seemed pretty remarkable at first glance. I saw enough information in the article and the photos to suggest a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, I don't have enough information to know if it's actually correct, but the fact pattern I suggested makes sense given the data we have available. Thinking about how it occurred makes an interesting brain teaser type exercise for folks who enjoy those kinds of things.

I've seen a few shootings in my time, and I found this one quite interesting. It brought me back some years to the times I and my colleagues would arrive at a crime scene, stare at some important element that initially made no sense at all, scratch our heads, and say "How the heck did that happen?" - And then get to work to figure it out and document it in a way that would stand up in court.

I understand that some folks may just think this is weird - but the type of thinking done around the facts of this case is how real crimes get solved in the real world.

[Heartland Patriot]

I did notice the deformation of the bullet. I wasn't sure if it was the bullet or an artifact of the x-ray. Overall you did a great analysis of the crime. You should be a cop.

God help us if cops and/or investigators are allowed to "solve" crimes by analyzing a news article and viewing an x-ray...

I wasn't trying to "solve a crime" as in identify a suspect, develop probable cause to arrest him, and amass enough evidence to convict him.

I was simply trying to find a fact based explanation for why the guy on the ladder wasn't dead after apparently being shot in the back of the neck with a .45, which, for those of us who have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds, seemed pretty remarkable at first glance. I saw enough information in the article and the photos to suggest a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, I don't have enough information to know if it's actually correct, but the fact pattern I suggested makes sense given the data we have available. Thinking about how it occurred makes an interesting brain teaser type exercise for folks who enjoy those kinds of things.

I've seen a few shootings in my time, and I found this one quite interesting. It brought me back some years to the times I and my colleagues would arrive at a crime scene, stare at some important element that initially made no sense at all, scratch our heads, and say "How the heck did that happen?" - And then get to work to figure it out and document it in a way that would stand up in court.

I understand that some folks may just think this is weird - but the type of thinking done around the facts of this case is how real crimes get solved in the real world.

Seems a lot like troubleshooting a malfunctioning machine. Have to take all the available data, use some logic, and apply experience...and usually that does the trick.

[Excaliber]

I did notice the deformation of the bullet. I wasn't sure if it was the bullet or an artifact of the x-ray. Overall you did a great analysis of the crime. You should be a cop.

God help us if cops and/or investigators are allowed to "solve" crimes by analyzing a news article and viewing an x-ray...

I wasn't trying to "solve a crime" as in identify a suspect, develop probable cause to arrest him, and amass enough evidence to convict him.

I was simply trying to find a fact based explanation for why the guy on the ladder wasn't dead after apparently being shot in the back of the neck with a .45, which, for those of us who have seen a fair number of gunshot wounds, seemed pretty remarkable at first glance. I saw enough information in the article and the photos to suggest a reasonable hypothesis.

Of course, I don't have enough information to know if it's actually correct, but the fact pattern I suggested makes sense given the data we have available. Thinking about how it occurred makes an interesting brain teaser type exercise for folks who enjoy those kinds of things.

I've seen a few shootings in my time, and I found this one quite interesting. It brought me back some years to the times I and my colleagues would arrive at a crime scene, stare at some important element that initially made no sense at all, scratch our heads, and say "How the heck did that happen?" - And then get to work to figure it out and document it in a way that would stand up in court.

I understand that some folks may just think this is weird - but the type of thinking done around the facts of this case is how real crimes get solved in the real world.

Seems a lot like troubleshooting a malfunctioning machine. Have to take all the available data, use some logic, and apply experience...and usually that does the trick.

Very much so for inanimate evidence - until you get to the people part, which is considerably more complex.