The whole thing is tragic. No one can see it any different.
Originally Posted by mtbinva
I don't think IMHO you can apply any rationality to his actions. My point is, he acted in a reduced capacity, so his rational thinking abilities and judgment were obviously impaired. How one reacts can't be predicted in such a state.
I agree with the question of why would you leave your wife and injured child, but at that point rationality is a moot point... sadly.
The whole thing is tragic.
Seems like some of the GT peanut gallery thinks if the driver is drunk he should be imediately shot at the accident.
I am assuming they would not think the driver would deserve a bullet to the head if he would have been sober and had a tire blow out - or had a stroke or heart attack - just before the crash.
So to get a walk - will he need to show he did it because the driver was drunk?
Can they even use the fact the driver was drunk? Seems like they should be able to - but I am not sure.
So - tell the jury he was drunk - so they hate him - but not try and show that the father shot him because he was drunk - but because he was mentally impaired as a result of just seeing his kids killed.