[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

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

Me.

Originally Posted by Z71bill

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.

And then the grandfather can go kill the drunk guy's dad. Eventually, you'll run out of people and the problem will solve itself.

[GVFlyer]

This has been a fascinating discussion with many contributors expressing views that seem to have a regional flavor, e.g., the folks from the Peoples Republic of Minnesota are generally saying that the father should fry and most of the Texans and Southerners are professing, "I'd never vote to convict."

I'm going to stay tuned.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by GVFlyer

This has been a fascinating discussion with many contributors expressing views that seem to have a regional flavor, e.g., the folks from the Peoples Republic of Minnesota are generally saying that the father should fry and most of the Texans and Southerners are professing, "I'd never vote to convict."

Agreed. It seems pretty obvious to me that those who would vote to convict are those from the more liberal states. I suspect that they are also ones who think that it is perfectly acceptable to have certain restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Agreed. It seems pretty obvious to me that those who would vote to convict are those from the more liberal states. I suspect that they are also ones who think that it is perfectly acceptable to have certain restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights.

Either that, or they are all drunks.

[sputnik767]

Originally Posted by Lord

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.

This is just about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. I've already debated my position to death here, but just to recap: guy put his kids in danger on a dark road, kids got hit by a drunk driver and died. Dad went home, got his gun, shot the drunk, and then apparently tried to hide the gun. Whatever his mental state was at the time, he had the presence of mind to find his gun, kill an unarmed drunk who no longer posed any threat to him, and then tried to cover up his crime.

Now as far as the reasonable bystander rule, would I do the same thing if I was in his shoes? I can't say for certain, as I've never been faced with such a situation. However, sitting here right now, in a sound state of mind, ABSO-******ING-LUTELY NOT. And I know full well that if I did, it would be murder.

If what I just said is exactly as what happened, and faced with the same evidence, I would absolutely convict. I sympathize with him, but he broke a law that he had no reason to break, and the temporary insanity argument seems shaky at best.

[AtsRight]

What he done was wrong. Would I have done it. I think maybe but hope not. I have two boys. 7 and 8. Could I convict him. Lets just say Im glad i dont have to.

[sputnik767]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Agreed. It seems pretty obvious to me that those who would vote to convict are those from the more liberal states. I suspect that they are also ones who think that it is perfectly acceptable to have certain restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights.

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is there a clause that permits revenge killings. The 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily to use. For the record, I'm from VA, despite my current location being NYC. I believe that all of our rights should be unrestricted, including the one about a trial by jury. Unless you are immediately threatened, you have no right to take that away from somebody.

[Jason D]

I would not convict

[Bren]

Just checking back to see of the limpwristers are through crying about the drunk's civil rights yet.

[frank4570]

Originally Posted by sputnik767

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is there a clause that permits revenge killings. The 2nd amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily to use. For the record, I'm from VA, despite my current location being NYC. I believe that all of our rights should be unrestricted, including the one about a trial by jury. Unless you are immediately threatened, you have no right to take that away from somebody.

Would that be Northern Va? One of he suburbs of D.C.?

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

...
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.

If you shoot my daughter in the face as stated, she was a dumbass for texting while driving, but shooting my kid in the face for rear ending your car, and not actually ending anyone in your car life, or having anyone sustain grave injury...surely you can see the disparity of what is going on there.

If she did indeed cause the death of someone in your car, know you what, I've had relatives killed by dumbasses driving doing dumb ****. Sucks to be her. I would mourn her loss, but certainly could understand your frame of mind.

There is a post somewhere near yours about "reasonable doubt". Read it.

- G

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There seems to be this idea here that a person working within the system is always just, while a person working outside the system is always vengeful. I don't agree because it can be mixed.

I agree with Gallium when he says that a lot of law is based on emotion. It can, for example, be argued that capital punishment is a deterrent and just, but there is also a vengeful component.

I don't agree with the idea that the U.S. is some great beacon of justice simply because we're more sanitized. I have seen the informal mechanisms of justice outside the U.S., some of them personally. Some informal acts occur happen because the presence of formal mechanisms are weak and/or absent (e.g., law enforcement that is fearful). Tradition can still dictate and even justify an informal act. That act might be called vigilantism here, but there still can be justice in that act. There can also be injustice because of the vengeance factor. In other words, sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. Probably no better or worse in so-called third world countries than America.

Orderly American mechanisms fail daily on smaller issues because of a system that is more concerned with order than law. There are also capital crimes in the American system that result in both justice and injustice.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Originally Posted by WilliamDahl

Me.



And then the grandfather can go kill the drunk guy's dad. Eventually, you'll run out of people and the problem will solve itself.

Not always. You might seek extended family, friends, etc.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

If you shoot my daughter in the face as stated, she was a dumbass for texting while driving, but shooting my kid in the face for rear ending your car, and not actually ending anyone in your car life, or having anyone sustain grave injury...surely you can see the disparity of what is going on there.

If she did indeed cause the death of someone in your car, know you what, I've had relatives killed by dumbasses driving doing dumb ****. Sucks to be her. I would mourn her loss, but certainly could understand your frame of mind.

There is a post somewhere near yours about "reasonable doubt". Read it.

- G

It doesn't matter if someone dies. It's still murder either way. Trying to justify murder because the driver is drunk is silly. As multiple cops stated, what if he was diabetic?

You can kill to stop a encounter, that's jeopardizing someone's life. But I know of no law that makes it legal to shoot someone after the potentially lethal encounter is over.


His frame of mind has no bearing upon the charge, when you leave the scene, walk back to your house, get a gun, bring it back, use it and then hide it, clearly shows premeditation.

He may have been distraught, but that doesn't mean he's got a free pass at murder.

[captcurly]

I hope he walks. Temporary insanity caused by the grief of losing his sons could and should work for him. This is a very sad story. The only good thing is that the drunk will not hurt anyone again.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

It doesn't matter if someone dies. It's still murder either way. Trying to justify murder because the driver is drunk is silly. ...

Really, WTF is your problem? You create a very unequal situation - my kid rear ends your car and you shoot her in the face? WTF is wrong with your head?

I've been rear ended before, and didn't have any urge to do anything except take pictures and swap insurance information.

My very pregnant wife was broadsided by a drunk guy, and if i was there his neck would have been in danger of being hyper extended.

I lost two relatives to a drunk truck driver. I didn't have to kill the guy - the people on the scene caught him as he was trying to escape, and beat him. Somewhere along the line he succumbed to his injuries.

There is a very big difference between someone rear ending my car and me suffering whiplash and someone creaming my car and offing two of my kids. I pray anything sick like that never happens to you. Unfortunately, lots of people are cool cucumbers until stuff happens TO THEM.

Comparing a rear ender with no injuries to a double homicide is beyondstupid.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

......
You can kill to stop a encounter, that's jeopardizing someone's life. But I know of no law that makes it legal to shoot someone after the potentially lethal encounter is over.


........

Although not pertinent to your example, here is a law that does allow someone to use deadly force after a potientally lethal encounter is over. Or at least could be over if you let them walk away with your property.

Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


Now you know of a law.

[AK_Stick]

I, ofcourse, know of that law, but it doesn't pertain to the situation. Hence why I said that.

Theft, is an entirely seperate issue from self defense.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

Really, WTF is your problem? You create a very unequal situation - my kid rear ends your car and you shoot her in the face? WTF is wrong with your head?

I've been rear ended before, and didn't have any urge to do anything except take pictures and swap insurance information.

My very pregnant wife was broadsided by a drunk guy, and if i was there his neck would have been in danger of being hyper extended.

I lost two relatives to a drunk truck driver. I didn't have to kill the guy - the people on the scene caught him as he was trying to escape, and beat him. Somewhere along the line he succumbed to his injuries.

There is a very big difference between someone rear ending my car and me suffering whiplash and someone creaming my car and offing two of my kids. I pray anything sick like that never happens to you. Unfortunately, lots of people are cool cucumbers until stuff happens TO THEM.

Comparing a rear ender with no injuries to a double homicide is beyondstupid.

The problem Drew, is I was trying to get you to think rationally for a minute, but it seems out of your grasp in this particular scenario.

You have no right to use lethal force, in this type of scenario, out side of self defense. As soon as the crash was over that was out the window.

From that point on, going to get your gun, coming back and shooting the driver, was purely murder. And was in no way justified, or excuseable.

That's why I used your daughter texting as an example. Because just like this scenario, at no point does deadly force become justified.

You can kill someone to defend a life, to stop an attack, or to stop the theft of or recover property.

But you can not legally kill, because your upset over the results of a motor vehicle collision.

[TX OMFS]

[sputnik767]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

The problem Drew, is I was trying to get you to think rationally for a minute, but it seems out of your grasp in this particular scenario.

You have no right to use lethal force, in this type of scenario, out side of self defense. As soon as the crash was over that was out the window.

From that point on, going to get your gun, coming back and shooting the driver, was purely murder. And was in no way justified, or excuseable.

That's why I used your daughter texting as an example. Because just like this scenario, at no point does deadly force become justified.

You can kill someone to defend a life, to stop an attack, or to stop the theft of or recover property.

But you can not legally kill, because your upset over the results of a motor vehicle collision.

That's pretty much what it comes down to. While the fact that the driver was drunk contributed to the crash, it's not relevant in terms of what the shooter did. Nor does being drunk and causing a collision a valid reason to use deadly force after the collision is over.

The point many are making is that the driver was drunk, crash killed the guy's kids, so the driver deserved to die. While that may be how some people feel, it is not legally justifiable. Nor is it our responsibility to play the part of judge, jury, and executioner.

I understand that the shooter was under a lot of emotional stress. While what he did was obviously unjustifiable under normal circumstances, I can possibly give him a pass here. However, the sheer number of people here who vehemently defend the shooter, or worse, are actually claiming that they would do the same thing, truly worries me.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

The problem Drew, is I was trying to get you to think rationally for a minute, but it seems out of your grasp in this particular scenario.

You have no right to use lethal force, in this type of scenario, out side of self defense. As soon as the crash was over that was out the window.

From that point on, going to get your gun, coming back and shooting the driver, was purely murder. And was in no way justified, or excuseable.

That's why I used your daughter texting as an example. Because just like this scenario, at no point does deadly force become justified.

You can kill someone to defend a life, to stop an attack, or to stop the theft of or recover property.

But you can not legally kill, because your upset over the results of a motor vehicle collision.

And I am telling you, unless and until you have experienced something close to this, you have no idea what his mindset is, or how logical his thought processes are...and furthermore, all I have maintained is, if I am seated on a jury, I am not convicting that dude under this specific instance. Other instances - maybe, but not this one.

I invite you to show me the rationality of invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the rationality of many of the foreign policy actions the USA takes, or the rationality of how we deal with our borders, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, drunk driving, which parent gets the kids in a divorce, alimony settlements, drug sentencing laws that call for stiffer penalties for crack vs cocaine...in the past, the government hiding known flaws or issues with Agent LNX, asbestos, gun laws, 55mph speed limits today...judicial immunity, etc etc

You are claiming rationality, and that emotions should not come into play, when many of our laws are based on emotion, and much of the action our gov takes at the federal or state/local level is not logical, is not rational.

This is how the world works. It is how the stock market works, it is how people work. It is how shopping works. It is how credit works, how the lotto works.

If it were a rational world our lives would be much more predictable.

[WarCry]

One thing that really confuses me is that so many people hear turn around and talk about eliminating emotions from the discussions - don't talk about Sandy Hook and gun control at the same time, because that's just playing on emotions.

But in this case, the people saying they would let the guy off, not convict, whatever, that's all 100% emotion-based. Those emotions are grief and anger, but apparently (according to the all-knowing GNG Collective) THOSE emotions are acceptable, as long as it works for your side.

If the anti-gun crowd aren't supposed to used emotions in determining things, isn't it only fair to say that neither should the pro-gun crowd?



I know this post is pretty much spitting in the wind, but I can't help but see the mountains of hypocrisy when cases like this come up.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Gallium

You are claiming rationality, and that emotions should not come into play, when many of our laws are based on emotion, and much of the action our gov takes at the federal or state/local level is not logical, is not rational.

This is how the world works. It is how the stock market works, it is how people work. It is how shopping works. It is how credit works, how the lotto works.

So, based on this quote - word-for-word what you said - you then agree with the call for gun control based on the tragedy at Sandy Hook?

If you can't see how that is identical to what you're advocating, then you're willfully picking and choosing when emotions should make something "okay". That is NOT the way the world works. The same rules have to apply to everyone.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by Gallium

And I am telling you, unless and until you have experienced something close to this, you have no idea what his mindset is, or how logical his thought processes are...and furthermore, all I have maintained is, if I am seated on a jury, I am not convicting that dude under this specific instance. Other instances - maybe, but not this one.

I invite you to show me the rationality of invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the rationality of many of the foreign policy actions the USA takes, or the rationality of how we deal with our borders, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, drunk driving, which parent gets the kids in a divorce, alimony settlements, drug sentencing laws that call for stiffer penalties for crack vs cocaine...in the past, the government hiding known flaws or issues with Agent LNX, asbestos, gun laws, 55mph speed limits today...judicial immunity, etc etc

You are claiming rationality, and that emotions should not come into play, when many of our laws are based on emotion, and much of the action our gov takes at the federal or state/local level is not logical, is not rational.

This is how the world works. It is how the stock market works, it is how people work. It is how shopping works. It is how credit works, how the lotto works.

If it were a rational world our lives would be much more predictable.

You can not legally kill someone over the results of a motor vehicle collision.

All of your bluster and maneuvering aside that is the key issue.


The father murdered him, because he was upset about a car accident he helped create. There is no legal justification for that.

And you have never met me, you have no idea the impact drunk operating has had on my life. I simply have the ability to discuss the topic without becoming emotionally invested in an incorrect statement.


But we come back around full tilt to, no matter how mad you are about the results of a traffic accident, killing the other driver because he hit you, is murder. Plain and simple.

The DD was guilty of many infractions, including manslaughter. But that does not give the father carte Blanche to murder him.

Justice is handled by the courts. Not upset individuals with firearms.