Firearms Talk banner
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Sounds like he is guilty of murder and should be sent to jail. He's not the judge jury executioner, if we just allow a disregard for the system then why have one at all? "Suspected drunk driver", maybe the man was not drunk but having a medical issue or something else was going on, this is why we have due process and don't just issue street justice.

He should not be allowed to own guns in the future, he has demonstrated he is not capable of controlling himself with them. They might just be the tool but this guy shouldn't have access to that tool.
This is true. How did the father know the guy was drunk? Did he try to care for his injured son's before he ran off to get a gun?

Would he have shot him anyway if he wasn't drunk?
 
How many times do drunks get away with driving before they get caught? They care for no one but themselves. I see this as no different that watching someone shoot your kid and then you returning fire after he has dropped the weapon. I hope he serves no time. I hope he loses none of his rights. I am not saying I would have shot him. But, I have children. And the are very dear to me. Who really knows what they would do faced with that situation? And that is all they need to make a jury think about.
 
Jury nullification

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the headline...If I was on the jury, I'd nullify the verdict. as in, I would ignore the letter of the law, and render my verdict based on what I feel is right and just. I'm tired of hearing about drunks killing people and getting just a few years in jail.

Every one of us knows someone who was close to us, who was killed by a drunk driver. Many of us know more than 1. Me? I know of 3 close friends who were killed by drunks, all different crashes. In each case, the drunk had prior convictions, did not have a license, was driving illegally... and yet they get 10 years or less for their crime. "he didn't MEAN to kill anyone, he was drunk, it's not his fault." Effing Bull Caca.

Most recent, this fool of PA was driving up US23 in Columbus/Delaware area of Ohio. had like 7 prior DUI convictions, and no license. He was driving at an extremely high rate of speed. so high that someone called 911 to report him for it...and then became the first person to report the crash when she rolled up on scene a few miles down the road. The driver killed a girl my age, a mother of a baby, who will now grow up without ever knowing her mom. At least in this case, the driver got 30 years.

This is true. How did the father know the guy was drunk? Did he try to care for his injured son's before he ran off to get a gun?

Would he have shot him anyway if he wasn't drunk?

And this was the second thought I had when I read the story. first son dead on scene. second son died in the hospital. Could the 2nd Son have survived if the father had stuck around to give first aid instead of going home for a gun? If he went to get a gun, I'll assume that means he did not call 911 right away? more precious time lost that could have saved his second son. At the time of the crash, how did the father know the other driver was drunk? sometimes it's obvious...empty beer cans in the vehicle, smell of booze, beer spilled in the crash, etc. other times, it's not so easy to tell...functioning alcoholic who was on his way home from the bar.


So...after reading the story, if I was on the Jury, here's how I would vote on the verdict: If the father can prove that he knew his second son was beyond recovery and that his wounds were fatal (difficult to do this...We have soldiers in god forsaken countries coming home with no arms and no legs, half their skull missing...and they survive) and if he can prove that he knew the other driver was drunk, then I would vote not guilty.

but, if he can't prove BOTH of those things, then I'd say he's guilty of something...manslaughter at the minimum.




Now....as a father of 2 young boys, If someone took them from me because they were selfish and dumb, such as a drunk driver...I would have no problem spending time in jail for whatever I may do after the fact.
 
One of the "tests" of so-called "heat of passion" killing is whether or not sufficient time had passed for "the blood to cool."

In the court cases that I have seen, if a wronged person draws a weapon at the scene and kills, "Hot Blood" is a reasonable defense and premeditation cannot be proved.

OTOH, if a person leaves the scene, goes home and retrieves a weapon, then comes back and kills his adversary, the proof of premeditation is satisfied.

From the limited evidence we have, in my opinion, the man is guilty of premeditated, first degree murder. There can be no doubt of that in the eye of the law.

Jury nullification is available to the jury if they feel that best serves the cause of justice.

My fear would be that if we make a habit of allowing vigilante justice, what's next? Do we hang people in the town square for being queer?? For spitting on the sidewalk??

Our criminal justice system is far from being perfect, but IMHO, it beats the hell out of individual revenge.
 
How many times do drunks get away with driving before they get caught? They care for no one but themselves. I see this as no different that watching someone shoot your kid and then you returning fire after he has dropped the weapon. I hope he serves no time. I hope he loses none of his rights. I am not saying I would have shot him. But, I have children. And the are very dear to me. Who really knows what they would do faced with that situation? And that is all they need to make a jury think about.
I completely agree, drunk drivers do not get punished enough. They should be charged with murder.
 
I completely agree, drunk drivers do not get punished enough. They should be charged with murder.
Charged with murder or murdered without charges? There is a difference and one of them happened in this instance and one did not.
 
Ya know, some of the folks that thought their government didn't have a right to kill Al Awlaki with a drone because he didn't get a trial, now want to kill a drunk driver without a trial.


Huh??????l.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
Here's what this man did:
1) he took the law into his own hands
2) the article mentioned nothing about the blood alcohol level of the man shot to death. I would think that if this guy was really drunk that would have been an important part of the article.
3) it did mention that the broken down truck was being pushed on a dark, narrow stretch of road
4) could there have been extenuating circumstances that the driver of the other vehicle couldn't have avoided?
5) not only has the family suffered a horribe loss of two precious children they have now lost a husband and a father. This man is going to spend many years of his life in jail, while his two surviving children grow up without him.
 
Ya know, some of the folks that thought their government didn't have a right to kill Al Awlaki with a drone because he didn't get a trial, now want to kill a drunk driver without a trial.


Huh??????l.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Killing an enemy combatant is an act of war. US civilian criminal laws are not enforced outside the boundries of the US. Rules of engagement and international rules of war are applied in cases like this

OTOH, we are a nation of laws. We should not go applying our own brand of justice to a situation.

Murder, according to the Texas Penal Code
(b) A person commits an offense if he:(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual

Whether this is punishable as a first degree or second degree felony is up to the jury. A sudden passion arising from adequate cause allows for a lesser punishment.

The "sudden passion" of seeing my two kids killed by anyone will last for several minutes. I can see this being used and successful.

Did he violate the law? Of course. Should he get 2-20 in prison (the punishment in Texas for a 2nd degree felony)? It depends on his history and other factors. If he has been convicted several times for assaultive offenses and has a history of violence, he should probably go to prison for a while. No history and an average Joe that just got caught up in the moment? Probation.

Just my $.002
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
Ya know, some of the folks that thought their government didn't have a right to kill Al Awlaki with a drone because he didn't get a trial, now want to kill a drunk driver without a trial.


Huh??????l.:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Well, if Al Awlaki had gotten all liquored up and ran into the Presidential limo as Sasha and Malia were pushing it up Pennsylvania Avenue late at night because Barack ran out of gas, then Obama calls out a drone strike on Awlaki wherever he might flee to then perhaps you might have a point.


Until then STFU.

That clear up your confusion?
 
Did the father commit a crime? Yes, he did. Should he be tried? Yes he should. He should also be sentenced to half of what the drunk driver would have gotten. Suspend his license for 6 months and give him credit for time served. I know what the law says he should get, but let's have a little justice for a change.
 
Thank you to locust and Yunus.

I dont even need to post here, you guys got it covered already :)

I know what the dad went through was tough. I mean thats obvious. But he didnt have a right to do what he did. Do I sympathise? Of course! Would I have done the same? Maybe...hope I never have to find out.
 
Until then STFU.

That clear up your confusion?
Yep. but with a quite a bit of disappointment.

I've disagreed with you from time to time, but I never thought you would become such an extreme hypocrite.

I believe that I have arrested more drunk drivers than you have even seen. I don't make excuses for them.

My post was to point out the HYPOCRISY of those who believe a terrorist in a foreign country is entitled to the full protection of the constitution, but a drunk driver in the U.S. should be summarily executed. That carries hypocrisy to new levels.

Shame on you!:(
 
Here is a question. Would any of you let your sons ages 11 and 12 push a pickup truck down a long dark, narrow, rural road? I know I wouldn't want to do it under those conditions or any else for that matter.

This is not safe or legal. The man shot and killed someone for their negligence but ignores his own.

And some of you think he should not be punished? He is the one that put those two boys out there to begin with.
 
Discussion starter · #38 ·
Yep. but with a quite a bit of disappointment.

I've disagreed with you from time to time, but I never thought you would become such an extreme hypocrite.

I believe that I have arrested more drunk drivers than you have even seen. I don't make excuses for them.

My post was to point out the HYPOCRISY of those who believe a terrorist in a foreign country is entitled to the full protection of the constitution, but a drunk driver in the U.S. should be summarily executed. That carries hypocrisy to new levels.

Shame on you!:(
I am not sure about the rest of the people who have been participating in this conversation, but as for me I have not made the protests regarding Al Awlaki that you mention. Personally I think that aside from a couple of dead guys there are few similarities here. That was my point. The guy who is in jail awaiting trial on murder charges for killing the killer of his sons has a lot of grief and remorse to think over. I am not so sure that having him in jail makes the citizens of Houston any safer. Having one drunk driver off the road forever does though. The father showed an extreme lack of judgment in having his sons push the truck down the road, something that I would not have done myself. I also cannot say that I would have shot the guy in the head either and I pray that I am never in a position where I might find out.

I do believe that having this conversation in the specific context of a father losing his sons to a drunk driver and killing the drunk is an important one for us as gun owners, many of whom carry at all times. It is important to put yourself into very uncomfortable hypothetical situations if you are to be a responsible gun owner.

I do not condone what this father did, but I do on some level understand.
 
I am not sure about the rest of the people who have been participating in this conversation, but as for me I have not made the protests regarding Al Awlaki that you mention. Personally I think that aside from a couple of dead guys there are few similarities here. That was my point. The guy who is in jail awaiting trial on murder charges for killing the killer of his sons has a lot of grief and remorse to think over. I am not so sure that having him in jail makes the citizens of Houston any safer. Having one drunk driver off the road forever does though. The father showed an extreme lack of judgment in having his sons push the truck down the road, something that I would not have done myself. I also cannot say that I would have shot the guy in the head either and I pray that I am never in a position where I might find out.

I do believe that having this conversation in the specific context of a father losing his sons to a drunk driver and killing the drunk is an important one for us as gun owners, many of whom carry at all times. It is important to put yourself into very uncomfortable hypothetical situations if you are to be a responsible gun owner.

I do not condone what this father did, but I do on some level understand.
Well, I haven't seen anything yet to prove the guy was drunk yet. The article say's "suspected drunken driver ".

Also, firearms are to be carried for self defense, not the administering of street justice.

What happens if the "suspected drunken driver " wasn't drunk? Does he get to come back to life?
 
One less drunk on the road, end of story!!
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top