[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Gallium

I have way more than "reasonable doubt" that the system is screwed up.

I agree with this statement.

My personal opinion is a defendant wants to try and convince a jury that martians made him do it, he should be able to present that defense.

[sputnik767]

Originally Posted by writwing

Here is CT we have a number of instances of multiple offenders of DUI. Many are let go if they have connections. Dont talk to me about the "legal system" as anything but a corrupt body.

None of what you said makes the father's actions acceptable.

[Paul7]

He should just plead temporary insanity like the criminals do.

If we had a functioning justice system some of these repeat DUI guys who kill people should be executed. At a minimum their cars should be confiscated, sold, and the proceeds distributed to a victim's fund.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by sputnik767

None of what you said makes the father's actions acceptable.

His actions are not acceptable. But they are certainly understandable.

[Z71bill]

IMHO - the second biggest tragedy (kids being killed is obviously #1) is it will take more than a year before this thing is decided.

Last I heard the father was still in jail - maybe they are waiting long enough so the judge can just sentence him to "time already served".



BTW - WE know NOW that the driver was drunk - father may not have known this at the time of the shooting.

If he was really so messed up that he did not even recall walking home and getting a gun - walking back and shooting someone before hiding the gun - then it is hard to imagine he was able to determine the driver had a BAC of 1.7.

Like I have already said - good chance a jury will never even hear that the driver was drunk.

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by Paul7

He should just plead temporary insanity like the criminals do.

He is a criminal. He killed someone in cold blood.

ARS

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by aspartz

He is a criminal. He killed someone in cold blood.

ARS

Actaully two people, if we are talking about the drunk driver.

[aspartz]

Nope, the vigilante father. Can you with a straight face say that he would have done the same thing if the driver had been an incompetent little old lady or a teen who had just learned to drive? In both cases, the driver knew that they were sub par but drove anyway. The only reason dad shot was because demon rum was involved. This is almost a hate crime.

ARS

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by aspartz

Nope, the vigilante father. Can you with a straight face say that he would have done the same thing if the driver had been an incompetent little old lady or a teen who had just learned to drive? In both cases, the driver knew that they were sub par but drove anyway. The only reason dad shot was because demon rum was involved. This is almost a hate crime.

ARS

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

You obviously have no children.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

You obviously have no children.

Emotional reaction (rage) does not make murder legal.

[gjk5]

Originally Posted by GVFlyer

Asking Bob if he was a Texan was a question, not an assertion. Grammar much?


Making ad hominem attacks in lieu of engaging in meaningful discourse is a declaration of intellectual incompetency, BTW.


Just to remind you, the entirety of your articulate post was –



If you think this ejaculation coherently expresses whatever your beef was with my original post, I am probably wasting my time with the rest of this post. However slight the chance of comprehension may be - here goes anyway.


To reiterate my original question to Bob, the subtext was, “Do you merely reside in Texas or do you embrace the typical belief systems and social mores of a Red State that codified laws excepting violent behavior based upon state of mind?” That question is in no way extremely stupid or foolish (as your use of “asinine” would allege).




I have no way of knowing if your values and opinions reflect those of the majority of Texans. It’s much as I stated in another post, I have lived in a state populated by closet socialists who believe that when I quote from Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, that it sounds like a pretty good idea - yet I have maintained by conservative views. Which, by the way, is why I asked Bob my original question.

The subtext of my "ejaculation" was that your assertion (by way of your question) that somehow one's political and societal views could dictate whether or not they were a "real" Texan. The fact that you or anyone else thinks they are the arbiter of what constitutes a "real" Texan is what is asinine.

Mince words, pontificate and tapdance all you want if it makes you feel better.

[aspartz]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

You obviously have no children.

Nope. Hence I can see this free from emotion. Emotion makes for bad laws and legal decisions.

ARS

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[jdeere_man]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Emotional reaction (rage) does not make murder legal.

That's not necessarily true:

§ 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by jdeere_man

That's not necessarily true:

sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

If this is true, I am justified killing a lot of people. The first are the people who wont move out of the left lane. I get really enraged and no longer capable of cool reflection. And then the cooks / cashiers at Burger King or Wendys. I want my burger without mayo. About 30% of the when I order a burger without mayo, I get mayo on my burger. I get really enraged and no longer capable of cool reflection.

What you probably have quoted is the highest level of a premeditated murder. You might not be guilty of pre-mediated murder, but likely one of the lessor degrees of murder.

[robertrwalsh]

The father could not have reasonably known at the time of the shooting that the other driver was drunk. Turns out he was, but (as previsouly noted) he could have had a medical issue or even a mechanical fault in the vehicle. That doesn't mean there will not be a lot of jury sympathy, especially if the other driver had priors for DUI.

[Gallium]

Originally Posted by robertrwalsh

The father could not have reasonably known at the time of the shooting that the other driver was drunk. ...

You cannot reasonably know that. Drunks survive many vehicular accidents why? And how do they act after the incident is over? VERY DRUNK. They don't act like they are having a medical condition or emergency.

[jdeere_man]

Originally Posted by robertrwalsh

The father could not have reasonably known at the time of the shooting that the other driver was drunk. Turns out he was, but (as previsouly noted) he could have had a medical issue or even a mechanical fault in the vehicle. That doesn't mean there will not be a lot of jury sympathy, especially if the other driver had priors for DUI.

So you got a guy with a BAC of 2x the legal limit and you're sober. You don't think you could identify him as being drunk?

[jdeere_man]

Originally Posted by DanaT

If this is true, I am justified killing a lot of people. The first are the people who wont move out of the left lane. I get really enraged and no longer capable of cool reflection. And then the cooks / cashiers at Burger King or Wendys. I want my burger without mayo. About 30% of the when I order a burger without mayo, I get mayo on my burger. I get really enraged and no longer capable of cool reflection.

What you probably have quoted is the highest level of a premeditated murder. You might not be guilty of pre-mediated murder, but likely one of the lessor degrees of murder.

So you cannot discern the difference between a drunk driver killing your kids and a fast food worker pissing you off?

[Texas357]

Originally Posted by Roering

I don't advocate vigilantism. Hell, up until now I wasn't sure I could even spell it.

That's sigworthy material.

[Texas357]

Originally Posted by GVFlyer

FWIW, Texas still has "adequate cause" and "sudden passion" laws which have allowed people to walk for things ranging from shooting a guy who made your teenage daughter pregnant to shooting an adulterer off your wife.

§ 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

That won't get you off the hook,

"(d)**At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree."

[jdeere_man]

Originally Posted by Texas357

That won't get you off the hook,

"(d)**At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree."

You're right, it won't. But a sympathetic jury with what I call common sense might. You can have all the laws you want, but it comes down to if the jury will convict.

[guns54]

I have to say,I would have done the same thing to him.

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by robertrwalsh

The father could not have reasonably known at the time of the shooting that the other driver was drunk. Turns out he was, but (as previsouly noted) he could have had a medical issue or even a mechanical fault in the vehicle. That doesn't mean there will not be a lot of jury sympathy, especially if the other driver had priors for DUI.

Prior DUIs as well as - convictions of child molestation & rape - cheating on his taxes - being an Obama supporter - being on welfare - being an illegal immigrant - being a high school drop out - not eating his vegetables - would never get to be presented at trial - unless the father (actually his attorney) can convince a judge he (father) knew about them and it was - at least part of the reason he shot him.

Doubtful that the driver being drunk will even be allowed - unless the father can convince a judge that he knew the guy was drunk and it was a contributing factor in why he shot him.

If the father claims he was thinking clearly enough to recognize the guy as being drunk - it will make it 10X more difficult to explain that his mind was also so messed up he did not even recall walking home - getting a gun - walking back - shooting drunk - hiding gun.

Plus it would be even more difficult to get this fact in - if the father does not take the witness stand.

[sputnik767]

Originally Posted by Gallium

His actions are not acceptable. But they are certainly understandable.

I could understand if he pulled out his gun in a fit of rage or "temporary insanity" and shot the guy on the spot. But he went home, got his gun, came back, and shot the guy. This is the point where it becomes premeditated murder and not an understandable response to an overwhelming emotional stimulus. He had at least a few minutes to think about what he was doing and maybe realize that his time is better spent tending to his kids instead of exacting his revenge. What probably happened is that the father figured that the drunk deserved to die. This is a point that has been echoed by countless people here as well. And the thing is, I can understand that feeling. But I can't understand or accept acting on that feeling. His actions solved absolutely nothing, and created tremendous problems for his remaining family, who will not only be on the hook for taking care of themselves, but the civil suit that will likely be brought on by the drunk's family. This is why you can't act on emotion.

[Gallium]

It is simple, because it happens all the time.

He saw evidence of impaired driving, deduced that the dude was drunk, and then SNAPPED. Everything after that was a blur. It happens all the time.
If he'd seen a little granny passed out over the wheel, or someone lucid enough, chances are he would not have gotten the gun.

My argument that it is most likely he did snap BECAUSE he could clearly see that the dude had four beers in him within the past hour or two, and that is why he became unhinged.

In 1984 Leon Gary Plauche shot and killed Jeff Dou-cet in front of cameras, D o u c e t had raped, then kidnapped his son. What did Plauche get for a sentence? Where was the immediacy of that act? His son is still alive. What could possibly cause him to "snap" but not this father?

When you've lived thru a traffic fatality for someone you know, you will understand how horrific and mind bending it can be.