Whoops!

[zinfamous]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7959155.stm

Karma is a bitch.

A US man who thought he was dying and confessed to having killed a neighbour in 1977 has been charged with murder after making a recovery, US media say.

James Brewer could now face the death penalty over the unsolved killing in Tennessee 32 years ago, reports say.

Convinced he was dying after a stroke, Mr Brewer reportedly admitted to police he shot dead 20-year-old Jimmy Carroll.

The 58-year-old, who had fled Tennessee after the killing, was arrested after his condition improved, reports say.

"He wanted to cleanse his soul, because he thought he was going to the great beyond," said police detective Tony Grasso, who interviewed Mr Brewer in an Oklahoma hospital, The Oklahoman website reported.

Mr Brewer had reportedly moved to Oklahoma from Tennessee after jumping bail after he was originally arrested and charged with Mr Carroll's murder in 1977.

The former factory worker changed his name to Michael Anderson and settled down with his wife, Dorothy, in the town of Shawnee.

The couple became active members of the local church, where Mrs Brewer established a Bible study group, reports say.

After suffering a stroke, Mr Brewer called police to his hospital bedside earlier this month, where he reportedly made the confession.

Detectives said Mr Brewer had admitted killing Mr Carroll, who he believed had been trying to seduce his wife.

However, Mr Brewer survived the illness and surrendered to authorities in his former home town of Hohenwald, Tennessee, after they were notified by the Oklahoma police.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This has FAIL written all over it

 

[JulesMaximus]

The moral of this story is, if you kill someone in Tennessee you only have to flee as far as Oklahoma to get away with murder.

 

[Beattie]

hahahaha

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The moral of this story is, if you kill someone in Tennessee you only have to flee as far as Oklahoma to get away with murder.

:laugh:

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The moral of this story is, if you kill someone in Tennessee you only have to flee as far as Oklahoma to get away with murder.

ive been to oklahoma, im not convinced that jail is worse.

 

[Beanie46]

Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

Which just tells us how fucked up our religious system is & how much of a joke "separation of church and state" really is.


I say stick a needle in his arm.

 

[Spineshank]

Haha thats awesome.

 

[amdhunter]

loooooooooooooooool, good for his dumb ass. I hope he rots for the rest of his life now.

 

[xboxist]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential

Bullshit. I watched Wedding Crashers.

 

[Newbian]

It's because of people like this that makes fail threads worth it so much.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

You are absolutely correct.
From wiki:

For Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." The priest is bound to secrecy and cannot be excused either to save his own life or that of another, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him. This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. The violation of the seal of confession would be a sacrilege, and the priest would be subject to excommunication. Many other forms of confidentiality, including in most states attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another. For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with unusually serious offenses, as some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See, and their permission to grant absolution would first have to be obtained.

Civil authorities in the United States are usually respectful of this confidentiality. However, several years ago an attorney in Portland, Oregon, secretly recorded a confession without the knowledge of the priest or the penitent involved. This led to official protests by then local Archbishop Francis George and the Vatican. The tape has since been sealed, and the Federal Court has since ruled that the taping was in violation of the 4th Amendment, and ordered an injunction against any further tapings.

 

[ballmode]

I guess there are perks to being catholic after all

 

[Fritzo]

Definition of PWNED.

 

[rasczak]

"honestly your Honor, it was the hospital drugs that were talking! I didn't do nuttin'!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

You are absolutely correct.
From wiki:

For Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." The priest is bound to secrecy and cannot be excused either to save his own life or that of another, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him. This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. The violation of the seal of confession would be a sacrilege, and the priest would be subject to excommunication. Many other forms of confidentiality, including in most states attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another. For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

There are limited cases where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's identity. This is the case, for example, with unusually serious offenses, as some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See, and their permission to grant absolution would first have to be obtained.

Civil authorities in the United States are usually respectful of this confidentiality. However, several years ago an attorney in Portland, Oregon, secretly recorded a confession without the knowledge of the priest or the penitent involved. This led to official protests by then local Archbishop Francis George and the Vatican. The tape has since been sealed, and the Federal Court has since ruled that the taping was in violation of the 4th Amendment, and ordered an injunction against any further tapings.

Holy shit.

Anybody else see the issue with not allowing a priest to break the seal to save another life, or the lives of many?

That's awesome. Maybe I should go join a Catholic Church, and just go to confession and tell the priest that I did planted a bomb in the city and see what he does.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

Are you sure about that?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

Are you sure about that?

several posts above....

 

[axelfox]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: Beanie46
Should've confessed to a priest........would've been absolutely confidential and no police would've gotten involved at all.

Which just tells us how fucked up our religious system is & how much of a joke "separation of church and state" really is.


I say stick a needle in his arm.

I don't the establishment clause has to do with anything criminal procedure

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Holy shit.

Anybody else see the issue with not allowing a priest to break the seal to save another life, or the lives of many?

That's awesome. Maybe I should go join a Catholic Church, and just go to confession and tell the priest that I did planted a bomb in the city and see what he does.

If it weren't for complete confidentiality, people wouldn't confess crimes to priests. It's a catch-22. If you eliminate the confidentiality, you still won't get the information that you wanted.