[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker

Totally disagree. Well, almost totally. Life isn't completely safe, agreed. But now you're saying it is the guy's fault his car broke down? Give me a break.

In some yuppie world, of high priced monthly car payments, maybe your car never gets old, but cars do break for normal common folks. And if it breaks down close to your home, push it the couple blocks back.

Total fault is on the drunk. 100 percent. He deserved his punishment.

Dark road...oooh...did you know that there are reflectors on the back of cars? Did you know that cars are equipped with headlights? People should be able to notice a car in front of them on the shoulder of a road before they hit it.

I say the drunk deserved his death sentence, and blaming the victim is pure BS.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. No sober driver has ever hit anyone walking down a dark back road at night.

I mean cars have reflectors, and there is no way a couple of kids standing behind a broke down vehicle could obscure those. And you know it's totally illegal to be pushing your vehicle down tge road in the lane of traffic, but lets not admit that.



And yeah, how rude of me to expect personal responsibility from the guy who's vehicle died. I mean it's not like the operator is expected to upkeep his vehicle. And it's not like most issues that disable vehicles stem from running the vehicle with a known issue till it becomes something that has to be addressed....

Yep, the driver is completely innocent. Nothing that he did put him and his family into a dangerous situation that night.



At the end of the day, the fathers actions contributed to the event. Had they got out, and walked on the side of oncoming traffic, which is pretty much SOP for walking dark backroads at night, they'd all be alive.

If they'd pulled to the side and waited for a tow, they might all still be alive.

Instead, the father elected to push a disabled vehicle down a dark backroad, and the kids died. There is no way you can look at all the things leading upto the collision and say he's not responsible.

He doesn't bare all the guilt, but he certainly bears a portion.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by RustyL

Wow, I get to go kill the doctor that misdiagnosed my father.

Works for me... There would be a lot fewer cases of repeat medical malpractice that way.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by GMT

He was wrong. This is exactly what the antis hope for. We need to abide by the law.

As far as I'm concerned, if the law is wrong, I have no moral duty to abide by it.

[WilliamDahl]

As far as I'm concerned, the key issue here is not whether the guy was drunk, but whether the same thing might have occurred even if he had been perfectly sober. I do not believe that just because you have had a couple of beers, you should automatically be at fault in any accident. For example, if a car is stopped on the road at night, right after a curse or hill, there is no road lighting, and they do not have their lights on, should it really matter if you have had a couple of beers before running into them since you would have run into them even if you had not drank the beers?

Now, the really scary thing is that I know for a fact that I am a better driver after drinking a 6-pack of beer than my sister-in-law is when she is perfectly sober. Then again, it takes me long enough to drink a 6-pack that I'm probably not really all that intoxicated anyway. The point that I'm trying to make is that my sister-in-law is a really bad driver, but she met the legal minimum to drive in this state. And I'm sure that there are plenty of drivers just like her out there. I guess that is even scarier...

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

I do not believe that just because you have had a couple of beers

BAC of 0.175. That's not "a couple of beers." That's upwards of twice the legal limit. It's very, very drunk.

[Antipaladin]

Two words. Jury Nullification. I wouldn't vote to convict him regardless of what the statute said.

[Z71bill]

The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

If you think the father of a child that is killed can decide - then the drunk guys dad can go shoot his son's killer.

[Antipaladin]

The unequivocal answer is "the jury". Should they decide that the defendant did indeed meet the elements of the offense, they are still within their rights to declare him innocent if they believe the law is being unfairly applied. Such a verdict is no less valid or binding than any other. US Courts have historically taken the position that nullification isn't a correct course of action and don't include it in juror instructions. Courts have routinely determined that a juror who voted one way, but determined they would have voted another had they known about nullification isn't grounds for another trial. The California Supreme Court has gone a step further and allowed jurors and potential jurors to be removed if they indicate a proclivity to vote their conscience should it conflict with the the jurisdiction's law. However, nullification is built into the legal system as any jury verdict attaches Double Jeopardy automatically and no juror can be punished for his vote.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

The question is - who get to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

If you think the father of a child that is killed can decide - then the drunk guys dad can go shoot his son's killer.

In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by Gallium

In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.

The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

Don't over think it - just answer it.

[frank4570]

I'd be willing to wager this guy won't kill any more people provided they don't use their car to crush his family members.

I would fully expect a father to be totally out of his mind right after seeing something like that. He'll never be right again. He might get to where he can muddle through one sad day after another, but I doubt he needs to go to jail because he is dangerous.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

In one instance, the children who were killed were not intentionally breaking any laws, and none of their actions directly contributed to the injury of others.

In the other instance, the "child" you refer to was adult, and was breaking the law, where his actions resulted in the injury and death of others.

That he met his sudden and "unjust" demise at the hands of someone else is factual, and for some even remorseful (not for I). The "fact" is, that his drunken actions don't give his dad much of a leg to stand on.

Just like if my "child" (over 21 years) raped a 11yr old, and was caught by the dad of the 11yo, that same dad who took his kid to a park and fell asleep, leaving his kid unmonitored where my "child" could rape him...

if that dad dragged my kid 1/2 mile to his house, dragged him inside and shot him like a dog....

Tough kittens for my son. Don't break the law in such gross ways and I may be able to muster up some sympathy for you.

Am I going to applaud that dude for whacking my son? No. But if I was on a jury, and he was on trial, I am not convicting that dude for whacking my rapist son, ESPECIALLY if he caught my kid in the act.

Your mileage obviously, differs.

It gives him as much of a leg to stand on as the father who murdered his son without a trial.


The fact remains, the father who did the shooting contributed to the accident as much as the drunk did. They're both guilty of murder, the difference being only one was in cold blood.

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by frank4570

I would fully expect a father to be totally out of his mind right after seeing something like that.

The question still remains, do you beleive he would have shot and killed the other driver if it had been an incompetent dottering old lady?

ARS

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by aspartz

The question still remains, do you beleive he would have shot and killed the other driver if it had been an incompetent dottering old lady?

ARS

I don't know. Crazy people are crazy.
I would suspect that a male human father is pushed farther into crazy finding that his boys were killed as a result of somebodys decision to be selfish and stupid.
Dottering old ladys aren't like that because they chose to be.

When I used to get into fist fights in school I sometimes blacked out, I guess from the emotional overload. I doubt I would have blacked out if it had been a little old lady picking a fight with me. But it wasn't a little old lady picking a fight with me and I lost my mind for a little while.

[The Maggy]

Originally Posted by frank4570

I don't know. Crazy people are crazy.
I would suspect that a male human father is pushed farther into crazy finding that his boys were killed as a result of somebodys decision to be selfish and stupid.
Dottering old ladys aren't like that because they chose to be.

When I used to get into fist fights in school I sometimes blacked out, I guess from the emotional overload. I doubt I would have blacked out if it had been a little old lady picking a fight with me. But it wasn't a little old lady picking a fight with me and I lost my mind for a little while.

But the dottering old lady chooses to get behind the wheel of a car while in a diminished state of mind, very much like the drunk driver.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

The question is - who gets to determine guilt (or not) & punishment?

Don't over think it - just answer it.

I have answered it countless times - THE JURY DOES, based on the evidence the state presents to the court.

Don't overlook my answer and go fishing for something that suits your mindset.

I also said if I am on that jury, and it requires a unanimous decision, I am not voting guilty - even if it was my son he retaliated against.

Follow your own advice. Don't keep creating "what ifs" and simply accept what you are being told. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe.

- G

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

It gives him as much of a leg to stand on as the father who murdered his son without a trial.


The fact remains, the father who did the shooting contributed to the accident as much as the drunk did. They're both guilty of murder, the difference being only one was in cold blood.

I agree with you on this. The cold blooded killer is the dude who drank and got behind the wheel. The dude who saw his kids turned into pasta got unhinged seeing his family splattered across the road.


I disagree with you on this. And I don't know if there is any legal mechanism (except for civil court) that weighs & balances stuff like this. So it is your opinion versus mine.

Questions I would ask, if I were an arbitrator deciding contribution of negligence:

• Did any other cars pass the family prior to the drunk?
• What statistics do we have that show how impaired the average person of his mass is, based on that level of intoxication?

And for your 1st statement on cold blood, I would also ask:

• Did the dad of the killed kids ever kill anyone in "cold blood" before? Did he ever kill anyone before? Threaten anyone with his gun?

If the answers to those questions are "no", the cold blooded killer is not the dad, because it's not like there was no emotional attachment to his actions.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I agree with you on this. The cold blooded killer is the dude who drank and got behind the wheel. The dude who saw his kids turned into pasta got unhinged seeing his family splattered across the road.


I disagree with you on this. And I don't know if there is any legal mechanism (except for civil court) that weighs & balances stuff like this. So it is your opinion versus mine.

Questions I would ask, if I were an arbitrator deciding contribution of negligence:

• Did any other cars pass the family prior to the drunk?
• What statistics do we have that show how impaired the average person of his mass is, based on that level of intoxication?

And for your 1st statement on cold blood, I would also ask:

• Did the dad of the killed kids ever kill anyone in "cold blood" before? Did he ever kill anyone before? Threaten anyone with his gun?

If the answers to those questions are "no", the cold blooded killer is not the dad, because it's not like there was no emotional attachment to his actions.

Your arguing based upon emotion, and ignoring the facts to do so.

You may feel that the drunk murdured those two kids in cold blood. But case law shows that in all reality a drunk killing someone is not regarded the same as a sober person shooting someone. It's generally considered manslaughter or at worst 2nd degree murder.

However, walking to your house to get a gun, returning to the scene of an accident (key word, accident) to murder someone, then hiding a gun displays intent and planning. That's unquestionably, and indefensibly 1st degree murder.

[RustyL]

I believe the only way out for the father is Temporary Insanity. I do believe in temporary insanity. I have experienced this concerning my child, in the manner of protecting her. I have never allowed one to talk badly about my child, not without a fight. I can't imagine what madness this man went through. And if this man cannot be found to have been temporary insane, they need to burn his ass.

The reason for my first post was people beating down drunk drivers, as though they are sub human. If 23% of traffic fatalities are due to drunk drivers, why then are 77% of the idiots given pretty much a pass?

I really feel bad for this guy, he elfed up though.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Your arguing based upon emotion, and ignoring the facts to do so.

You may feel that the drunk murdered those two kids in cold blood. But case law shows that in all reality a drunk killing someone is not regarded the same as a sober person shooting someone. It's generally considered manslaughter or at worst 2nd degree murder.

However, walking to your house to get a gun, returning to the scene of an accident (key word, accident) to murder someone, then hiding a gun displays intent and planning. That's unquestionably, and indefensibly 1st degree murder.

You don't know the guy's mindset at the time he did all of this.

And if you'd read all of the posts in this thread you would have long understood that MANY of our laws are based to some degree on emotion.

I have not ignored any facts. The message about driving while drinking has been out there for decades. If you (speaking broadly) decide to drink and drive, irrespective of your capacity in that instant, you were no less clear headed than the dude who walked back to his house to get his gun and off the drunk.

Like I said: Opinions - you're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I never claimed mine was "right" and yours wrong. The one thing I am certain of is, there is nothing you, or anyone else can type that will change my mind.

- G

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by DocwithGlock

If I was that father I would not have used a gun.

That's what tire irons are for. Then again, these days, tire irons are rather wimpy and it would take a lot more effort to properly handle the situation with one.

[Z71bill]

I wonder if the father will take the stand at his trial?

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by The Maggy

But the dottering old lady chooses to get behind the wheel of a car while in a diminished state of mind, very much like the drunk driver.

If you see a senile old grandmother as equal to a 20 year old drunk guy, then you do.
I don't, I know most people don't. If a confused old grandmother killed my children I would feel different than if a drunk 20 year old male did the same thing. Is it right to have more compassion for a senile grandmother than a drunk 20 year old guy? Yes.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by sputnik767

So am I right to understand that this shooting was not in self-defense? While I feel for him and for his loss, his actions were absolutely inappropriate and unjustified under the law. Keep in mind that our legal system isn't based on whether the drunk driver deserved it, the decision to charge the shooter is based on whether the shooter broke the law. In this case, he is not going to walk. Having said that, I am glad I'm not going to be sitting on his jury because I would hate to have to convict him.

you would be a disgrace to a jury, then. Convictions can only come if certain things can be proven and there is no reasonable doubt. Did he kill the guy. Yes. If he was in his right mind, would he have done such a thing? probably not. was he not in his right mind when he shot the guy? most likely not. was his intent malicious in nature? hard to say.

There is only one definite answer in that scenario. The others are maybes or probably's. Therefore, there is a reasonable doubt. With reasonable doubt, there can be no conviction. Aside from that, there is the reasonable bystander rule. As a reasonable bystander, would I have done the same thing in his shoes? ABSO-******ING-LUTELY.

I could not convict. Let justice be grateful that YOU are not on the jury, because if YOU would convict, there would be no justice.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

You don't know the guy's mindset at the time he did all of this.

And if you'd read all of the posts in this thread you would have long understood that MANY of our laws are based to some degree on emotion.

I have not ignored any facts. The message about driving while drinking has been out there for decades. If you (speaking broadly) decide to drink and drive, irrespective of your capacity in that instant, you were no less clear headed than the dude who walked back to his house to get his gun and off the drunk.

Like I said: Opinions - you're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. I never claimed mine was "right" and yours wrong. The one thing I am certain of is, there is nothing you, or anyone else can type that will change my mind.

- G

As I said, that's your oppinion, but legal precidence disagrees.

You may think that going out drinking, and then ending up behind a wheel is the same as blatant, and premeditated first degree murder, but that is simply an oppinion.

I'm staying fact, when I say it's not. Backed up by plenty of cases and legal definition.


This is why we are opposed, not oppinion, but rather because you are actually wrong. You just want this father to get away with murder.

If I remember correctly, you have girls don't you?

I seem to think you'd be crying a different tune if I shot your daughter in the face because she rear ended my car because she was texting.