It’s late one night in a small town in Texas when a gang of teenagers breaks into the office of a used car dealership. They force open a key vault and steal six used cars. Edgar, an employee of the dealership, is in a coffee shop across the street. He sees the thieves and runs toward the car lot, but he’s too late, all six stolen cars have pulled away.

Apparently the boys know they were spotted. It’s late at night, several days later, when Edgar is working late at the office. He’s approached by a teenager with a gun. The teen warns Edgar not to help the cops in the investigation or he’ll die.

Edgar reaches for a handgun in his desk drawer and the teenager fires two shots. Both miss their mark as Edgar returns the fire with a single shot at the figure in the dark shadow of his office door.

Police find drops of blood on the threshold, leading them to believe Edgar’s defensive shot found its mark. A short time later Shane is arrested as a suspect in both the car thefts and the attempted murder of Edgar.

The main evidence against Shane is a bullet lodged under his skin about two inches above his eyes. The bullet has not pierced Shane’s skull but is lodged under fatty tissue.

Police obtained a search warrant to have emergency room doctors remove the bullet so it can be matched with Edgar’s 9mm pistol. But the doctors at the ER refuse to operate to remove the bullet. They claim "patient privacy" is the issue, and will not operate. Although numerous medics agree that removal of the bullet is not a life-threatening procedure — there’s an ethical stalemate.

Shane’s lawyer poses yet another objection. His client is under the protection of the Fifth Amendment which says "he is not be required to give evidence against himself."

This moral quandary still has not been resolved, but it’s giving authorities on both sides of the courtroom plenty to think about.