Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by xray678, Feb 11, 2013.
oh jesus, give me a break
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.
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.
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.
Can I shoot the little old lady who runs down any member of my family?
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.
Obviously, you are not legally justified.
If you mean in a moral sense, then I believe it's the right thing to do.
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.
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?
Your rationality just won't fly around her, mister!
Maybe the drunk driver is gonna try and finish me and the rest of my family next month when he gets out of jail?
Anyone live close enough to slap this DH for me?
Six pages of comments and it isn't very hard to understand why the last election went the way it did.
While I do know that trying to run somebody over is reason to be shot, nobody here knows how it went down exactly.
Do you mean the large number of folks that let their emotions control them?
Most people would have a hard time determining whether someone is drunk or in a diabetic coma. BTW, their breath smells about the same.
That's actually a pretty good comaprison in that the old lady should have known she wasn't fit to drive in the same way a drunk should know they aren't fit to drive.
It was murder. May have been more justifiable if he didn't go home to get the gun or if he waited until there was proof the guy was drunk. Even so, it would have been murder.
I have to agree 100% here. My families condition is priority number one. The other driver's condition is a far distant second to that unless he/she is trying to flee the scene.
Jury selection will be a pain no doubt as parents/grandparents will sympathize with the father and nobody is going to sympathize with a drunk driver who just killed two kids. Plus factor in that a gun was used to kill the guy. With the heated issues going on right now that will be a focal point as well even though it wouldn't have made a difference whether he grabbed the tire iron out of his truck and beat the guy to death with it instead. Truthfully I think the only hope of getting a conviction rather than a hung jury is if they can manage to find 12 people that will keep emotion out of it and will strictly base their decision on whether or not what the guy did was a justifiable homicide. Odds of that, just about 0. The topics involved are just far too emotional to get a group of completely unbiased jurors from the jury pool. The DA will probably just try to get this guy to agree to a plea bargain rather than letting it go to trial.
Again, no matter how you look at it, the entire thing is an absolute tragedy for all parties involved.
Well, he sure as heck murdered that guy. I think that what happened to his sons should come in as a mitigation factor at sentencing, but does not really have a whole lot to do with whether or not he left the scene, went to his house, got a gun, then shot the driver. Sure, it deals with his state of mind, whether he did it knowingly or with malice aforethought or if he was temporarily insante. Who in the world has an 11 and 12 year old out on the road pushing a truck at night? This is really weird. Were the taillights illuminated on the shooter's truck? 0.17 is high, but no crazy high as far as BAC. Back in the day, the legal limit in many, if not most states was 0.15. I don't think the driver was black-out drunk unless he was not a drinker.
I would convict the guy, and I do a fair amount of criminal defense work. You don't get to that sort of thing here. We don't live in Yemen.
I totally agree…too many variables to make an informed decision.
I believe there are two issues here, how do you “Feel” about the father shooting the drunk who killed his kids, and the frame of mind of the father as he went to retrieve his weapon.
One is a moral issue/dilemma and the other is the diminished mental capacity of the father. Maybe, just maybe as some have mentioned before the father made a poor decision, and that also contributed to his anguish… i.e. “I wish I would have waited till the morning”. Far too many details we just don’t know. Why is the gun missing? Did the driver get out of his vehicle and panicked and started the OMG OMG!!! We’ll never know until trial.
What makes this a good discussion, is, rest assured the jury will be having this same discussion once in deliberation. Based on the Texas statute (cited earlier) along with the discussion of the mens rae, I believe there will some sort of punishment, but possibly not as harsh as manslaughter.
If you want a response you're going to have to be more articulate. What do you mean by this comment?
Are you suggesting that someone from say, New York City, who moved to Texas as an adult would have the same views as someone born and raised in Texas?