View Single Post
Old 02-12-2013, 09:07   #144
Senior Member
Z71bill's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Originally Posted by mtbinva View Post
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.
The whole thing is tragic. No one can see it any different.

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.

Last edited by Z71bill; 02-12-2013 at 09:10..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote