Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Arsonist's Pacemaker Rats Him Out; Police Subpoenaed Logs

posted by janrinok on Friday February 03 2017, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-have-no-privacy;-get-over-it dept.

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Cory Doctorow reports via Boing Boing

Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Middletown, Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire; there were many irregularities to the blaze that investigators found suspicious, such as contradictory statements from Compton and the way that the fire had started.

In the ensuing investigation, the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker, specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand, and cardiac rhythms before, during, and after the fire".

[...] The data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened.

[...] [The cops] subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud.

Cory links to coverage by Network World.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Arsonist's Pacemaker Rats Him Out; Police Subpoenaed Logs | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 55 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @05:20AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @05:20AM (#466456) Journal
    If you ever want to talk about the subject rather than imaginary lack of education some time, feel free to do so. I'll point out here that you have had plenty of posting opportunities to present such an education. We aren't after all talking about a sophisticated topic here, but the definition of a phrase.

    The problem is that words have meaning. And "intent to kill" is pretty clear what it means: deliberately engage in activities you know have a high likelihood of killing people. As you've agreed in the past, it doesn't matter if there are other goals at hand. Intent to kill holds every time someone intends to perform any action with a high likelihood of death for others particularly IMHO when the more successful the action is, the higher the likelihood of death. Your various examples show this, whether it be the shooting at the Louvre or your example of the submarine (where one deliberately kills others to save others).

    What's particularly bizarre is that you already have established [soylentnews.org] exceptions to your absolute claim " if they intend to kill, they are murderers". Well, Buttercup, self-defense is just another exception.

    And really, there's nothing more to this thread than that. There is no libertarian agenda furthered by how we choose to interpret "intent to kill".