View Full Version : where do you stand on this?
jk the sooner fan
8/8/2006, 09:03 PM
interesting story here in the dallas area
several months ago, a 90ish year old man shoots his wife and kills her......she's old and bed ridden from a previous stroke.......her husband is the only one that takes care of her.....but he's got terminal cancer with only a few weeks to live...so he "euthanizes" her to spare her the ......ordeal of living without the man thats cared for her for so long.....he never told her that he was ill
90ish year old man is as frail as a broken piece of glass, he's immediately arrested and then released on his own recognizance, and 2 weeks later, he dies of his terminal cancer
the couple had family here locally, a daughter or two and a son.....
ok, so old man is a veteran who would normally be afforded the opportunity for burial in a national cemetary along side his wife......however, the gubment had a law passed "the mcveigh law", which prohibits the burial of a vet in a national cemetary when they've committed a criminal act......its original intent was to keep people like tim mcveigh out of a national cemetary of honor.....
the family is planning to file a federal lawsuit because the VA wont budge on this
i'm not at all a big fan of euthanasia, and since old bugger had lots of family that could have cared for his wife (their mother), i'm not sure putting two bullets in her head was the best most peaceful way to go
i'm on the fence......should the VA allow him burial or stick to the rule of law?
BoogercountySooner
8/8/2006, 09:09 PM
Stick to the rule there are lot's of places to bury people or cremate!
Madd Dawg
8/8/2006, 09:15 PM
murder is murder, no matter what the reason.
OUHOMER
8/8/2006, 09:18 PM
I say stick to the law. I am dont think if the old guy was told about the law it would have made the much difference to him. His motives were probly honorable in his eyes.
OUHOMER
8/8/2006, 09:20 PM
murder is murder, no matter what the reason.
I dont think i can agree with that statement 100%
Don't want to bring Kevorkian into this, but I just did.
He wasn't all wrong in his intentions, just in the letter of the law.
That said, currently, the old vet broke the law, murdered his wife with (I assume) the best of intentions, and probably shouldn't be buried in Arlington. It's the law. There's easier ways than bullets to the head.
Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 09:28 PM
There's a difference between euthanasia and murder. What he did, sans any allegation that his wife wanted her life to be ended in that situation, is murder.
Madd Dawg
8/8/2006, 09:28 PM
I dont think i can agree with that statement 100%
Even if the blue hair wanted to be euthanized, its still murder. Thats what its called when one human kills another unlawfully. And because its still murder, no matter how both of them felt about it, it should still be treated as any other murder.
However, he was never convicted of the crime by a court of law. I'm assuming that's part of the McVeigh law. If you die before a jury finds you guilty, according to the law, you die an innocent man.
i'm not at all a big fan of euthanasia
It's a shame we can be more humane to our pets than our loved ones.
But I say stick to the law. He broke the law and like you said, there was other family.
However, he was never convicted of the crime by a court of law. I'm assuming that's part of the McVeigh law. If you die before a jury finds you guilty, according to the law, you die an innocent man.
That is my understanding as well. I believe Ken Lay had a similar circumstance where he is not technically guilty because he had not yet exhausted his appeals.
murder is murder
but killing someone isn't always murder
Madd Dawg
8/8/2006, 09:49 PM
murder is murder
but killing someone isn't always murder
It is if its unlawfully. Killing may not be used with malice, but its still murder.
jk the sooner fan
8/8/2006, 09:50 PM
murder is murder
but killing someone isn't always murder
exactly, justifiable homicide for instance
i wish i had a picture of this old man being led from his home in handcuffs by the police.....talk about heartwrenching
such a senseless act and the family seems to support it...which is what baffles me......how do you tell your kids that granddad blew away grandma with a revolver.....she never asked for her fate
royalfan5
8/8/2006, 09:56 PM
There was a case like this in Nebraska not all that long ago, except for it had the twist that the wife actually had been mis-diagnosed and wasn't terminally ill. I think the husband ended up serving a year in the pen for it. He was 75ish I think. In this case, end of life issues are very sticky, I tend to go with the VA's rule. He can still be buried with full honors elsewhere can't he. My uncle was a felon and he got full honors when he died 5 years ago.
Madd Dawg
8/8/2006, 09:57 PM
such a senseless act and the family seems to support it...which is what baffles me......how do you tell your kids that granddad blew away grandma with a revolver.....she never asked for her fate
Exactly what makes it even more of a murder than "euthanization".
bigdsooner
8/8/2006, 09:58 PM
man what a sad story, he killed his wife, even though his intentions were good. i cant honestly say what i think should happen...too many mixed feelings about it.
ChickSoonerFan
8/8/2006, 10:40 PM
Sad story...no good outcome can come from this. His family should just bury him and let it quietly disappear from the news.
Soonrboy
8/8/2006, 10:45 PM
Never walked a mile in his moccasins, and pray I never have to make that decision.
leavingthezoo
8/9/2006, 12:39 AM
i'm thinking this is one of those issues that people (most anyway) can't just pick a side and pat themselves on the back for doing so. only thing i get is how sad the situation is on so many levels. beyond that... i'm sorry anyone finds themselves in these circumstances.
sigh.
Vaevictis
8/9/2006, 12:44 AM
Guy was wrong unless he had existing direction on the matter.
Good intentions can ameliorate, but cannot absolve. And the law is the law; it is not patently wrong, and such actions *should* have consequences. If the law says he can't be buried, then he can't. If not, then he can.
GrapevineSooner
8/9/2006, 01:05 AM
I don't think the VA wanted to open this Pandora's Box.
And I don't blame them.
My heart goes out to the man. But the rule by the VA was put into effect for a reason without any exceptions.
olevetonahill
8/9/2006, 01:55 AM
i'm thinking this is one of those issues that people (most anyway) can't just pick a side and pat themselves on the back for doing so. only thing i get is how sad the situation is on so many levels. beyond that... i'm sorry anyone finds themselves in these circumstances.
sigh.
I agree
So there for I stand firmly on the fence .
personally, i'd rather be bedridden than dead
it would be different if she was braindead or terminally ill and in a lot of pain or something, but i didn't see that in the story
critical_phil
8/9/2006, 04:10 AM
maybe, after all these years, he was just sick and tired of her sh!t.
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 05:33 AM
Even if the blue hair wanted to be euthanized, its still murder. Thats what its called when one human kills another unlawfully. Homicide actually. "Murder" has distinct elements according to state statute and the facts of the case would control whether or not the old guy may (or may not) be guilty.
Anyway, if he died of his disease before trial, he was only charged and never convicted at trial. I say he's innocent because in America we have that whole "presumption of innocence until proven guilty" dealio. IOW, the state didn't prove the elements of any crime he allegedly committed beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he still meets the criteria for interment in a national cemetery.
Speaking as a vet who wouldn't mind being buried next to this guy if his service was honorable, I say let him be buried wherever he wanted.
critical_phil
8/9/2006, 05:59 AM
i can't wait to hire Homey.
you will return my calls, right???
MamaMia
8/9/2006, 06:21 AM
I feel awful about this situation because obviously the family was a no show for this elderly couple, but they should abide by the rule.
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 06:23 AM
i can't wait to hire Homey.
you will return my calls, right???
My people will.;)
AlbqSooner
8/9/2006, 07:03 AM
My people will.;)
NO, NO, NO Homey. Lawyers have to be politcally incorrect.
"I will have my girl contact your girl."
sooneron
8/9/2006, 07:19 AM
Homicide actually. "Murder" has distinct elements according to state statute and the facts of the case would control whether or not the old guy may (or may not) be guilty.
Anyway, if he died of his disease before trial, he was only charged and never convicted at trial. I say he's innocent because in America we have that whole "presumption of innocence until proven guilty" dealio. IOW, the state didn't prove the elements of any crime he allegedly committed beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he still meets the criteria for interment in a national cemetery.
Speaking as a vet who wouldn't mind being buried next to this guy if his service was honorable, I say let him be buried wherever he wanted.
This is what I was thinking. Ken Lay had been found guilty and sentenced (not sure how that applies here, but someone brought it up). I feel like I can't make a moral decision without knowing more facts. If the guy killed the terminally ill wife without her request of ending it, it seems like murder, but the VA's rule cannot apply. It's pretty sad that the old dude thought the kids wouldn't take care of the woman when he's gone.
jk the sooner fan
8/9/2006, 07:30 AM
This is what I was thinking. Ken Lay had been found guilty and sentenced (not sure how that applies here, but someone brought it up). I feel like I can't make a moral decision without knowing more facts. If the guy killed the terminally ill wife without her request of ending it, it seems like murder, but the VA's rule cannot apply. It's pretty sad that the old dude thought the kids wouldn't take care of the woman when he's gone.
the wife wasnt terminally ill, the husband (killer) was.......she required round the clock care because of a stroke she'd had
the family doesnt at all dispute that dad killed mom
TexasLidig8r
8/9/2006, 07:55 AM
Apparently, the applicable statute requires conviction:
The Senate quickly passed the legislation,' and a few months later, an amended version, denying burial in a national cemetery to those convicted of a federal or state capital crime, passed both houses of Congress.' President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on November 20, 1997 as the Veterans' Benefits Denial Act of 1997 (Denial Act).9
Since the elderly gentleman in question was not convicted of the crime, technically the law does not pertain to him.
However, the spirit of the law does apply and the law was intended to cover situations such as this.
Nonetheless, if the statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, courts, in all reasonable probability, will not go into the legislative intent of the statute.
This is one where the VA may have and probably should, relent.
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 08:07 AM
:texan:
However, the spirit of the law does apply and the law was intended to cover situations such as this. With great respect for your learned and well considered opinion, I humbly disagree. I submit the statute was crafted in response to concerns that a convicted mass-murderer or other such offal might someday be interred in a national cemetery by virtue of his prior honorable service in the US Armed Forces. Based on what we've been told about this man, I don't believe even the intent of the statute applies.
This is one where the VA may have and probably should, relent. Indeed.
Sooner_Bob
8/9/2006, 08:18 AM
Having to deal with losing my grandmother to a stroke a couple of years ago I can completely understand where the older guy was coming from. What I don't get is why the kids didn't help. He apparently felt that his wife would be better off if he ended her suffering rather than letting his kids take care of her. That is very sad IMO.
I am shocked that the government is sticking by one of its rules.
sooneron
8/9/2006, 09:19 AM
the wife wasnt terminally ill, the husband (killer) was.......she required round the clock care because of a stroke she'd had
the family doesnt at all dispute that dad killed mom
OK then, he was very wrong, but I defer the actual statute stuff to the resident ambulance chasers.
Hamhock
8/9/2006, 09:34 AM
he killed his wife. that is a crime. law states felons can't be buried in a national cemetery.
the fact that he was yet to be convicted brings up an interesting point. if conviction is required, i expect the intent of the law can be easily violated. for example, what if mcveigh had decided to go jihad and stay in the truck and drive into the building instead of leaving. then what? he wasn't convicted. he wasn't even charged.
should the law be changed to include death in commission of a felony? then you play with the whole, innocent until proved guilty thingy.
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 09:47 AM
Fixed it and added my thoughts. :texan:
he allegedly killed his wife. If convicted, that is a crime. law states people convicted of capital crimes -- crimes for which the penalty may be life in prison or execution, can't be buried in a national cemetery.
the fact that he was yet to be convicted brings up an interesting point. if conviction is required, i expect the intent of the law can be easily violated. for example, what if mcveigh had decided to go jihad and stay in the truck and drive into the building instead of leaving. then what? he wasn't convicted. he wasn't even charged. There wouldn't have been anything left to bury though.
should the law be changed to include death in commission of a felony? then you play with the whole, innocent until proved guilty thingy. Not a felony, heck, anything that can get you more than a year in the jug is a felony in most places. I like it the way it is. "Convicted of a capital crime" is sufficient.
Hamhock
8/9/2006, 09:52 AM
Fixed it and added my thoughts. :texan:
thanks. i left out some key points of the law. (capital offense)
but the possibility still exists that a guy(not the elderly dude, but a guy to whom this law is directed) commits a crime that would/should lead to a conviction but dies from the time of commission to formal conviction. what if mcveigh had died fleeing or was killed by shrapnel? even if he had blown himself to smithereens, i think they still have a burial.
slickdawg
8/9/2006, 09:53 AM
However, he was never convicted of the crime by a court of law. I'm assuming that's part of the McVeigh law. If you die before a jury finds you guilty, according to the law, you die an innocent man.
which is why they will win the case.
That's a tough situation to be in. I can't condemn the man without all of
the exact facts.
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 10:12 AM
thanks. i left out some key points of the law. (capital offense)
but the possibility still exists that a guy(not the elderly dude, but a guy to whom this law is directed) commits a crime that would/should lead to a conviction but dies from the time of commission to formal conviction. what if mcveigh had died fleeing or was killed by shrapnel? even if he had blown himself to smithereens, i think they still have a burial.
I dunno bro, I still think the "convicted" part is pretty important.
Look, Arlington's not taking new customers anyway as far as I know. There was talk of adding space, but I don't know where that is.
There are national cemeteries all over the country though. I bet if we could (or wanted to) check, there would be more than a few guys buried in national cemeteries who did some pretty shady stuff after they got out of the military.
Think about it, if a guy did honorable service in combat for this nation, do we really want him to be denied burial in a national cemetery specifically set aside for such men (and their wives) because much later after he was no longer in uniform he got drunk one night and got into a car wreck in which people died? Maybe we do, but I'm okay with him being buried next to me.
where do you draw the line though? 1st degree murder? maybe only if they kill 3+ people?
Okla-homey
8/9/2006, 10:40 AM
where do you draw the line though? 1st degree murder? maybe only if they kill 3+ people?
Well, the line is drawn now at convictions for capital crimes. One killin' will do it if the penalty sought could be life in the slam or the big sleep shot under the laws of the state in which the crime was committed. Its the life or execution if convicted that makes crimes "capital crimes", not the heinousness of the alleged offense
I dunno bro, I still think the "convicted" part is pretty important.
Look, Arlington's not taking new customers anyway as far as I know. There was talk of adding space, but I don't know where that is.
There are national cemeteries all over the country though. I bet if we could (or wanted to) check, there would be more than a few guys buried in national cemeteries who did some pretty shady stuff after they got out of the military.
Think about it, if a guy did honorable service in combat for this nation, do we really want him to be denied burial in a national cemetery specifically set aside for such men (and their wives) because much later after he was no longer in uniform he got drunk one night and got into a car wreck in which people died? Maybe we do, but I'm okay with him being buried next to me.
Nah, but we'd keep re-electing him.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.