GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2013, 07:20   #126
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
You said that drunk drivers deserve roadside killings. What am I spinning exactly? Don't try to spin your justification of homicide into my young idealism. I'm an immigrant in this country. Any vision of idealism was beaten out of me a long time ago. I am paying to work harder in med school than most people work at their jobs because I know this world isn't going to do me any favors.
...

Let me think for a second...oh yeah, here it is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
Wow, incredible. You already have me believing that you should not own a gun. And that takes talent. But I guess advocating murder will do it.

What I did say was :
Quote:
Personally, I don't give two ****s about what "antis" think. It would have been the same to me if he'd gone home for a machete and chopped the guy up in 10000 tiny pieces by the roadside.

Drunk drivers really do deserve roadside execution...
I did not say "it is ok to kill drunk drivers by the roadside".

Maybe you should spend more time learning how to carefully parse and understand the English language.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:30   #127
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleGribble View Post
...He saw a drunk guy that killed his kids, he killed said drunk guy that killed his kids, it really is as simple as that.

In my world view, he didn't do a damn thing wrong.
At a very "caveman" like level, you're right.

If you think about this from the confines of your warm computer chair in a well temperature maintained environment, what you are saying is horrific.

Trials are about standards of reasonableness. It is entirely plausible to me, that a reasonable person - someone like Sputnik, Restless, HollowHead or you, would snap and behave in a similar manner if it was your children who were killed by a drunk driver.

If nothing remotely close has ever happened to you, its fine to argue anything else. Much like MOST death penalty opponents are suddenly VERY pro-death penalty when their daughter or son is raped, strangled and stabbed, left to bleed out in an alley.
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:30   #128
mtbinva
Senior Member
 
mtbinva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 113
I found this link of interest in re diminished capacity as an affirmative defense.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handl...ction=journals
__________________
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Louis Pasteur
mtbinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:35   #129
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinr20 View Post
He killed him out of rage. He didn't know if the guy had a heart attack or passed out from diabetes. It wasn't determined he was intoxicated until after he was dead. I can understand wanting to hurt someone who just killed your family but what if it truly was an accident due to a medical condition or something else.

Sent from my DROID RAZR
You can't tell when somebody is drunk? Most people can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushflyr View Post
F.T.M.F.W.

IMO, driving after having some arbitrary number of drinks should not be illegal. As long as the operator is made to take full responsibility for any consequences of his actions.
The problem with that rule is, after having too many drinks, they are no longer making rational decisions and not allowing the police to stop them before they cause damage means somebody has to die to make the point. Every drunk driver believes nothing is going to happen to him, just as strong as a liberal believes he doesn't need a gun for self-defense. Requiring somebody to be injured or killed before we can get one off the road would make DUI homicides and injuries an even bigger problem than they are now (and they are already a much bigger problem than violent crime).
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 02-12-2013 at 07:39..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:39   #130
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,233


I agree with jury nullification for this guy.
gwalchmai is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:42   #131
Altaris
Senior Member
 
Altaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 11,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbinva View Post
Just to make it clear to the what-if-ers... The driver WAS drunk. Lets not loose focus on one fact that we do know.

Temporary insanity. I'm NOT saying his actions were right, but I'd be hard pressed to say I wouldn't have done the same thing had it been my kids.

Vigilantism is NOT the answer either. No matter how you look at it, the whole situation is tragic, very tragic indeed.

The problem is, from what I can tell, is that it was not known he was drunk until After the fact.

If I go shoot someone on the street, and find out later he just happened to be a wanted cop killer, I will probably get praise for that. That still does not justify my actions since I didn't know it at the time and he could have been an innocent person. I would still deserve to go to jail.


You are right, this is a very tragic situation for everyone, and it was caused by multiple errors committed on both sides.
__________________
To Alcohol !
The cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems
-Homer Simpson-
Altaris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:52   #132
mtbinva
Senior Member
 
mtbinva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altaris View Post
The problem is, from what I can tell, is that it was not known he was drunk until After the fact.

If I go shoot someone on the street, and find out later he just happened to be a wanted cop killer, I will probably get praise for that. That still does not justify my actions since I didn't know it at the time and he could have been an innocent person. I would still deserve to go to jail.


You are right, this is a very tragic situation for everyone, and it was caused by multiple errors committed on both sides.
With his BAC, I'm sure there was an odor. However, that's PURE speculation on my part. Certainly, he can establish deminished capacity. So the issue is either a lesser charge or even acquittal.

It will be interesting to see how this plays put in court.

Regardless, tragic, all the way around.
__________________
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Louis Pasteur
mtbinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 07:55   #133
Roger1079
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South FL
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk View Post
With the exception that DWI homocide is treated as less than a manslaughter in most cases. It should be treated as first degree murder. Why? The person made a concious, premediated decision to become intoxicated and then take a 5 ton weapon and not care if they killed peoplw with it. Which they clearly did.

I have no sympathy for the dead drunk driver. Not even a little.
5 tons? Was the drunk in the cab of a big rig?

On a serious not though this who situation is full of fail. If he waled to his nearby home to retrieve a gun, I can understand due to the close proximity why they tried to push the vehicle rather than calling for a tow truck. However, at nearly midnight is not the time to be pushing a vehicle on a roadway. They should have left it on the shoulder, all walked home, and dealt with it in the morning.

The drunk on the other hand should have never been intoxicated in the first place being underage, much less getting behind the wheel in that condition. That being said, the father is still accountable for what he did which if how the article reads is accurate (which it very well may not be) is go home to retrieve the gun that he used to kill the drunk driver.

I really hope this guy gets a lawyer that can make a temporary insanity plea stick, however it doesn't look good as it appears that he went home for the gun giving him time to think his actions through. If he was carrying, getting that plea to hold water would be much easier.

Either way you look at it, the entire situation is a tragedy.
Roger1079 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:02   #134
DaleGribble
Well Heeled Bum
 
DaleGribble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Land of the toothless!
Posts: 15,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
At a very "caveman" like level, you're right.

If you think about this from the confines of your warm computer chair in a well temperature maintained environment, what you are saying is horrific.

Trials are about standards of reasonableness. It is entirely plausible to me, that a reasonable person - someone like Sputnik, Restless, HollowHead or you, would snap and behave in a similar manner if it was your children who were killed by a drunk driver.

If nothing remotely close has ever happened to you, its fine to argue anything else. Much like MOST death penalty opponents are suddenly VERY pro-death penalty when their daughter or son is raped, strangled and stabbed, left to bleed out in an alley.

I totally agree with every word you said.

Nothing like this has ever happened to me and I hope it never does, but it's not hard to imagine this father going bat **** insane when he saw his sons get killed by a drunk.

Hopefully, if this guy gets convicted, Rick Perry will pardon him!
DaleGribble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:03   #135
BobInTX
Senior Member
 
BobInTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,090
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA27 View Post
It's Texas. Do you think a jury of his peers will convict him?
I live in Texas. Yes, we would. He'd probably get manslaughter because of the boys' deaths, but there was premeditation involved because he deliberately went back to his house to get his gun. And I agree with others who say that he didn't know the cause of the guy hitting the car. He was just killing the guy who killed his boys.

We respect the rule of law in Texas.
__________________
"I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me". Philippians 4:13.
BobInTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:14   #136
mtbinva
Senior Member
 
mtbinva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobInTX View Post
I live in Texas. Yes, we would. He'd probably get manslaughter because of the boys' deaths, but there was premeditation involved because he deliberately went back to his house to get his gun. And I agree with others who say that he didn't know the cause of the guy hitting the car. He was just killing the guy who killed his boys.

We respect the rule of law in Texas.
I have to question the premeditation. There are two parts to a criminal act, and in this case I believe mens rea was not a premeditated, even though he went to his house to obtain his weapon. Being present and witnessing BOTH children getting killed altered his state of mind, I think it's safe to say. I would fathom to guess he was in a state of shock.

Even in the time it took for him to secure his weapon would not (IMHO) equate to returning to a rational state of mind and go down the path of premeditation.

Just my $0.02
__________________
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Louis Pasteur
mtbinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:26   #137
GVFlyer
Senior Member
 
GVFlyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere in the air.
Posts: 6,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobInTX View Post
I live in Texas. Yes, we would. He'd probably get manslaughter because of the boys' deaths, but there was premeditation involved because he deliberately went back to his house to get his gun. And I agree with others who say that he didn't know the cause of the guy hitting the car. He was just killing the guy who killed his boys.
You live in Texas or you're a Texan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobInTX View Post
We respect the rule of law in Texas.
Did you read the Texas Penal Code § 19.02. MURDER extract covering Texas's "adequate cause" and "sudden passion" laws that I posted earlier in this thread?
__________________
The Truth Only Hurts If It Should.

http://www.specialops.org/
GVFlyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:35   #138
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbinva View Post
I have to question the premeditation. There are two parts to a criminal act, and in this case I believe mens rea was not a premeditated, even though he went to his house to obtain his weapon. Being present and witnessing BOTH children getting killed altered his state of mind, I think it's safe to say. I would fathom to guess he was in a state of shock.

Even in the time it took for him to secure his weapon would not (IMHO) equate to returning to a rational state of mind and go down the path of premeditation.

Just my $0.02
So he had the capacity to determine the driver had over the legal limit of alcohol - but not enough to realize that shooting the driver was illegal?

Maybe they could show he was mentally impaired at the time of the shooting - what state of mind would cause a person to leave one critically injured child, his wife, 8 year old daughter, 3 month old son and dead child - at the accident to walk home and get a gun.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:47   #139
Flying-Dutchman
Senior Member
 
Flying-Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputnik767 View Post
And since his shooting was not legally justified, he is probably not going to walk.
Too bad actors; a drunk driver and an idiot making his kids push his car in the dark though he somehow survived maybe by jumping out of the way.

Just like all those fires where the adults somehow live while the kids die.

But no jury will convict. Hung jury or not guilty; if GT’ers were the jury, it would be a hung jury.

The prosecutor is lucky to get a plea bargain for manslaughter with a light sentence.

No parent will convict.
Flying-Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:49   #140
mtbinva
Senior Member
 
mtbinva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
So he had the capacity to determine the driver had over the legal limit of alcohol - but not enough to realize that shooting the driver was illegal?

Maybe they could show he was mentally impaired at the time of the shooting - what state of mind would cause a person to leave one critically injured child, his wife, 8 year old daughter, 3 month old son and dead child - at the accident to walk home and get a gun.
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.
__________________
"Chance favors the prepared mind."

Louis Pasteur
mtbinva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:50   #141
gjk5
Pinche Gringo
 
gjk5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grand Junction Colorado
Posts: 9,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVFlyer View Post
You live in Texas or you're a Texan?
oh jesus, give me a break

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
So he had the capacity to determine the driver had over the legal limit of alcohol - but not enough to realize that shooting the driver was illegal?

Maybe they could show he was mentally impaired at the time of the shooting - what state of mind would cause a person to leave one critically injured child, his wife, 8 year old daughter, 3 month old son and dead child - at the accident to walk home and get a gun.
well said
gjk5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:04   #142
sputnik767
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
Let me think for a second...oh yeah, here it is:




What I did say was :


I did not say "it is ok to kill drunk drivers by the roadside".

Maybe you should spend more time learning how to carefully parse and understand the English language.
So in your mind, saying that "drink drivers deserve roadside executions" is somehow not equivalent to it being OK to kill drunks on the side of the road? And considering that you are vehemently defending what the shooter did, which is exactly that. OK buddy, keep convincing yourself that you're right, but most people know better. Considering the fact that English is my 2nd language, it would seem that my ability to parse and understand it is better than yours. In the context of what you're saying and what you're defending, there can be no other conclusion.

Last edited by sputnik767; 02-12-2013 at 09:07..
sputnik767 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:05   #143
MulletLoad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outer Marker
Posts: 1,087
Most posters here are screwing themselves into the ceiling with a black/white position as to whether this was justified.

Based only on the information in the article, I don't think it's clear cut that many sober people would not have plowed into the back of that truck like the drunk. Were the boys and the father wearing black, pushing a dark colored truck on the road or the sideberm? Were the trucks lights off and the reflectors blocked by those pushing? Did the father know the guy was drunk or was it done in rage? Did the father suffer a blow from the impact and was his decision making affected. All of the above are reasons why we can't be doing crap like this in the heat of the moment. Now if the driver was a repeat offender, drove in the guys yard on a sunny day and killed his boys playing in a sandbox, I'd say hve a trial, convict and I wouldn't shed a tear or convict the father if he shot the driver walking out of the jail on the day on his release.

Anyone in the group please answer this: You get t-boned going through a green light at an intersection. One or more members of your family are seriously or fatally injured while you are unscathed. You see the driver that hit you slurring his words and moaning over his steering wheel, reeking of Vodka whose bottle remains you see shattered over the driver and the front seats.

Looking at your dead and injured family members in your car, do you guys feel you are justified to immediately shoot the driver the hit you?

Honest answers please.

Last edited by MulletLoad; 02-12-2013 at 09:10..
MulletLoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:07   #144
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,853
Quote:
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
Old 02-12-2013, 09:10   #145
aspartz
Senior Member
 
aspartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sandstone, MN 55072
Posts: 5,788
Can I shoot the little old lady who runs down any member of my family?

ARS
__________________
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Unknown
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force" - George Washington
aspartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:19   #146
Altaris
Senior Member
 
Altaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 11,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletLoad View Post
Anyone in the group please answer this: You get t-boned going through a green light at an intersection. One or more members of your family are seriously or fatally injured while you are unscathed. You see the driver that hit you slurring his words and moaning over his steering wheel, reeking of Vodka whose bottle remains you see shattered over the driver and the front seats.

Looking at your dead and injured family members in your car, do you guys feel you are justified to immediately shoot the driver the hit you?

Honest answers please.
I would be so focused on my family and their immediate health that I wouldn't even concern myself with him as long as he was still in the car. If he tried to get out and run away I would slam his ass into the ground and hold him until the cops came, but if he didn't move then he wouldn't get a second look from me. If I have enough cognitive function to scan the area and determine that he is a drunk, then my brain is working enough to know I need to help my family. Family safety = priority #1.
__________________
To Alcohol !
The cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems
-Homer Simpson-
Altaris is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:22   #147
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletLoad View Post
Most posters here are screwing themselves into the ceiling with a black/white position as to whether this was justified.

Based only on the information in the article, I don't think it's clear cut that many sober people would not have plowed into the back of that truck like the drunk. Were the boys and the father wearing black, pushing a dark colored truck on the road or the sideberm? Were the trucks lights off and the reflectors blocked by those pushing? Did the father know the guy was drunk or was it done in rage? Did the father suffer a blow from the impact and was his decision making affected. All of the above are reasons why we can't be doing crap like this in the heat of the moment. Now if the driver was a repeat offender, drove in the guys yard on a sunny day and killed his boys playing in a sandbox, I'd say hve a trial, convict and I wouldn't shed a tear or convict the father if he shot the driver walking out of the jail on the day on his release.

Anyone in the group please answer this: You get t-boned going through a green light at an intersection. One or more members of your family are seriously or fatally injured while you are unscathed. You see the driver that hit you slurring his words and moaning over his steering wheel, reeking of Vodka whose bottle remains you see shattered over the driver and the front seats.

Looking at your dead and injured family members in your car, do you guys feel you are justified to immediately shoot the driver the hit you?

Honest answers please.
Obviously, you are not legally justified.

If you mean in a moral sense, then I believe it's the right thing to do.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:26   #148
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altaris View Post
I would be so focused on my family and their immediate health that I wouldn't even concern myself with him as long as he was still in the car. If he tried to get out and run away I would slam his ass into the ground and hold him until the cops came, but if he didn't move then he wouldn't get a second look from me. If I have enough cognitive function to scan the area and determine that he is a drunk, then my brain is working enough to know I need to help my family. Family safety = priority #1.
This --

Then

After the fact - next day - next week - next year -

You don't go kill the driver because - you going to jail is not going to help your family (the living or dead - but mainly thinking of the living).

Any man - father - husband - worth $.01 would rather be around to help his wife and kids cope with the loss - not be away serving X years in prison.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:26   #149
MulletLoad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outer Marker
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Obviously, you are not legally justified.

If you mean in a moral sense, then I believe it's the right thing to do.
Sorry, I didn't state if I was asking if it was strictly legal (it wouldn't be of course), more if you had enough information at the scene to make a decison to shoot the driver that hit you.

You think you'd be justified in a moral sense to shoot him in that case, correct?

thx
MulletLoad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 09:27   #150
Kilrain
Señor Member
 
Kilrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: On the road to Shambala
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
This --

Then

After the fact - next day - next week - next year -

You don't go kill the driver because - you going to jail is not going to help your family (the living or dead - but mainly thinking of the living).

Any man - father - husband - worth $.01 would rather be around to help his wife and kids cope with the loss - not be away serving X years in prison.
Your rationality just won't fly around her, mister!

__________________
For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen.

- Sterling Archer
Kilrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:20.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,474
445 Members
1,029 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42