I saw this one on fark earlier, it seems that he's perfectly within his rights to refuse treatment, although it's really not in his best interests. If I was him I'd just take a trip to Mexico and have it removed there And since when did 9mm lodge itself under the skin? Must've been a squib
so does she have a compelling argument as to why he has a bullet lodged in his forehead? or a compelling reason why it shouldn't be removed (aside from violating his rights)? couldn't they get him on obstructing justice (impeding a police invsetigation maybe?) for refusing a warrant?
Knock him out, jank it out. He is an identified suspect in a serious crime, and he is obstructing the course of justice. I'll just go get my Leatherman...
wouldn't that give him a nasty headache? Hmmm, would the bullet be his property since it is in his head or the other guys property since it came from the other guy's gun?
I like that question! Remember, possession is not 9/10 of the law, and possession is not the same as ownership. As I read it once: If you possess something that someone else owns, it is his, not yours. The person who bought the ammunition could conceivably be considered the person who "owns" the bullet. If I shoot a bow and arrow, the arrow does not transfer ownership just because it left my bow. Similarly, I don't think a bullet transfers ownership just because it leaves the gun. However, if they try to arrest the kid for theft, and demand that he return the stolen property, he may just claim that it is his bullet. With no way of proving to whom the bullet belongs, they are stuck in the stalemate. Is there any way they can take an x-ray to get a look at the rifling pattern on the bullet? -monkey
I don't see it as the state's right to go poking about his head, no matter the circumstance. You can't go and tell someone "oh, we'll slice you open because we have a warrant to". I'd sue the **** out of them for violating my human rights.
tricky situation really 1. Leave bullet - have another criminal unpunished for his crime - absolute shambles. 2. Remove bullet - uphold justice - controversy. I stand by number 2, even if it does dodge human rights laws. If he has a compelling peice of evidence lodged in his head then it should be removed regardless. If you had an arrtifact lodged under your skin that could prove your innocence, would you have it removed to prove it? The fact he isn't allowing such a process is proof enough for me that he's guilty. The the proper authorities should ensure it's removal.
Seems that the tricky part is getting a doctor to do the procedure, as ethically they can not treat someone who refuses treatment, especially as its non life threatening. I could see two ways round this. 1. get someone who's not a doctor or employed in a health service to do it, and then send him to a doctor to get cleaned up 2. create in the kid a life threatening emergency and extract bullet at same time. i.e. shoot him again. However we could just hope the lodged bullet migrates and kills him.
This post & replies are cracking me up! I have to say, that his refusal to allow its removal point to him being guilty but at the same time, isn't there something in the law that states you have the right not to incriminate yourself? Kinda similar to the 'right to remain silent'... LMFAO!!!
Heh, maybe he wants it as a souvenir? But seriously, he would eventually needs it removed anyway. Just make sure this person doesn't grab a kidney or a lung at the same time. You know how unscrupulous those unregistered "doctors" are.
I'd be more tempted to just stick a big magnet to the back of his head to let the bullet finish it's job. If there was not a lot of evidence indicating that he were guilty then I might side with him. However, considering the evidence I say get the pliers ready. L J
Some of us refer to the 9mm round as the "euro pellet". If our choir boy had been hit with .45ACP goodness this case would be over.
If the bullet was anywhere other than embedded in a human, it would be grabbed as evidence all but instantly. Furthermore, having bullets embedded under one's skin is hardly a standard medical procedure. Also, he's a suspect in an assault case. I think that, with a warrant specifically for the bullet in his forehead, the police are well within their rights to demand it. If it doesn't line up, I suppose they could re-insert it.
Just thinking out loud here... Would refusal to allow the removal of the bullet be comparable to pleading the fifth? Refusing to give evidence on the grounds that it could be used against him?
