TX father charged with murder after shooting drunk driver who killed his sons

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Is anyone debating whether or not the driver was drunk?  

hartsickdiscipl

Define "fair."

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Why does it matter if he was or not? Everyone deserves a fair trial.

Nibroc420

Define "fair."

The Fifth Amendment in general does a decent job of explaining what to do with criminals.

At any rate, culpability and sentencing should be determined by some kind of objective third party, and not the parties involved with the crime itself. There's almost no chance that an aggrieved family member is going to objectively or rationally determine the facts of the case, so there's no way in hell that they should be able to take it upon themselves to judge and execute others.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Define "fair."

Planeforger

The Fifth Amendment in general does a decent job of explaining what to do with criminals.

At any rate, culpability and sentencing should be determined by some kind of objective third party, and not the parties involved with the crime itself. There's almost no chance that an aggrieved family member is going to objectively or rationally determine the facts of the case, so there's no way in hell that they should be able to take it upon themselves to judge and execute others.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Due process.Nibroc420

The Fifth Amendment in general does a decent job of explaining what to do with criminals.

At any rate, culpability and sentencing should be determined by some kind of objective third party, and not the parties involved with the crime itself. There's almost no chance that an aggrieved family member is going to objectively or rationally determine the facts of the case, so there's no way in hell that they should be able to take it upon themselves to judge and execute others.

That's terrible that the guy ran over his sons.  But he was out of line shooting the guy. Then again if I was in his shoes and had a weapon on me I might do the same.  You don't mess with a mans children...

The father should of challenged the man to a ping pong game and loser kills themself. That would of been the smart thing to do.

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

sherman-tank1

I'm not saying it is an excuse. I'm saying the charge should be manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter 

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

Guybrush_3

I'm not saying it is an excuse. I'm saying the charge should be manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter 

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Emotional distress does not give you an excuse to kill somebody period. 

sherman-tank1

I'm not saying it is an excuse. I'm saying the charge should be manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter 

Are you saying that context isn't important?

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

I'm not saying it is an excuse. I'm saying the charge should be manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter 

Guybrush_3

Are you saying that context isn't important?

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Should be a manslaughter charge, not a murder charge.  He was clearly under extreme emotional duress.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]What a stupid law. 

sherman-tank1

Are you saying that context isn't important?

The man watched his two sons die violently right infront of him, very few people on this planet would have the ability to make rational decisions after something like that. (with the exception, of course, being internet tough guys like yourself)

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Emotional distress does not give you an excuse to kill somebody period. 

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

Are you saying that context isn't important?

Guybrush_3

The man watched his two sons die violently right infront of him, very few people on this planet would have the ability to make rational decisions after something like that. (with the exception, of course, being internet tough guys like yourself)

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] The knowledge that his son's killer was loose drove him into temporary insanity. Now that he's fully aware the killer is dead, he's sane.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]You always have the option of controlling yourself, if that is what you are inquiring about, regardless of the situation.

sherman-tank1

The man watched his two sons die violently right infront of him, very few people on this planet would have the ability to make rational decisions after something like that. (with the exception, of course, being internet tough guys like yourself)

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

The man watched his two sons die violently right infront of him, very few people on this planet would have the ability to make rational decisions after something like that. (with the exception, of course, being internet tough guys like yourself)

Guybrush_3

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]I'm not trying to be a tough guy, I'm saying the man should be fully accountability for his actions. Hell, I would do the same thing he did, but I also would take full respoincibilty for what I did.

sherman-tank1

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

He didn't start a massacre, he killed the one person who killed his two sons while an emotionally disturbed state, and under US law, that is reason for some level of leniency because nuance is a thing.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]I'm not trying to be a tough guy, I'm saying the man should be fully accountability for his actions. Hell, I would do the same thing he did, but I also would take full respoincibilty for what I did.

sherman-tank1

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

Guybrush_3

He didn't start a massacre, he killed the one person who killed his two sons while an emotionally disturbed state, and under US law, that is reason for some level of leniency because nuance is a thing.

I'm fine with him killing the drunk driver, though he should be charged with murder and be put in prison for it.Lonelynight

He should be charged with manslaughter, not murder.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

He should be held accountable for his actions, but the circumstances of his actions should also be taken into account. Therefore, voluntary manslaughter is a much more fitting charge in this case.

Nibroc420

I'm fine with him killing the drunk driver,Lonelynight

though he should be charged with murder and be put in prison for it.Lonelynight

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Curcumstances? If a man got enraged in a state like the father does that give him a partial excuse to start a massacre?

sherman-tank1

He didn't start a massacre, he killed the one person who killed his two sons while an emotionally disturbed state, and under US law, that is reason for some level of leniency because nuance is a thing.

It depends on the circumstances. It wouldn't be an adequate provocation in this case if this guy had killed four other random people in response to this, so that would not fit the definition of manslaughter.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

He didn't start a massacre, he killed the one person who killed his two sons while an emotionally disturbed state, and under US law, that is reason for some level of leniency because nuance is a thing.

Guybrush_3

It depends on the circumstances. It wouldn't be an adequate provocation in this case if this guy had killed four other random people in response to this, so that would not fit the definition of manslaughter.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]No, but I'm saying if somebody had the same enraged status as that man and started a massacre, they should be charged with manslaughter as well? 

sherman-tank1

It depends on the circumstances. It wouldn't be an adequate provocation in this case if this guy had killed four other random people in response to this, so that would not fit the definition of manslaughter.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

It depends on the circumstances. It wouldn't be an adequate provocation in this case if this guy had killed four other random people in response to this, so that would not fit the definition of manslaughter.

Guybrush_3

To be fair, I find it hilarious that in this same thread you proposed the drunk driver should be put to death. You have a brilliant sense of justice, bro.

Aljosa23

His crime resulted in the death of two people. He deserves to be dead. It just should have been at the hands of the justice system. Not a vigilante.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]But as far as we know, he can't control himself, so how could he be fully responcible according to you?

sherman-tank1

No, it's not ok, and he should be punished. You definitely still go to jail for a few years for manslaughter.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]again, because nuance is a thing. There is a difference between being provoked by one person and killing that one person and being provoked by one person and killing 5 random people.

Guybrush_3

No, it's not ok, and he should be punished. You definitely still go to jail for a few years for manslaughter.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]So, just because he has a reason to violate the law, its ok?

sherman-tank1

No, it's not ok, and he should be punished. You definitely still go to jail for a few years for manslaughter.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

No, it's not ok, and he should be punished. You definitely still go to jail for a few years for manslaughter.

Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Yeah, and then what if people start using "emotional distress" as an excuse for killing somebody else, knowing that they will only get a few years? Everybody will start crying manslaughter.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]You clearly aren't familiar with how the US justice system works. Manslaughter has been around for a very long time. You can't just claim emotional distress. You have to be able to clearly show a reason for it (hence why I talked about reasonable provocation, which is part of the law), you also have to show that prior intent to kill the person was not there (which it also wasn't in this case, this guy had no intent to kill this man before his children were killed)

Guybrush_3

It's not even clear how the dad knew the guy was drunk.   Maybe he didn't know he was drunk but was just pissed about what happened.

Shame, I don't have kids but I can see how a parent would react in such a manner.

His kids were just taken away from him as a result of another person's gross negligence.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] He killed the man's sons.....mingmao3046

The drunk driver should be in jail, no question. Doesn't matter if he didn't want to kill the children, he is accountable for his actions and he is responsible for the death of 2 children. But this is still murder.

100% correct.  The only thing worse than the sons dying, is the murder of the driver.  

One was accidental, the other intentional; I think the latter should be punished severely.

mrbojangles25

Killing someone while driving under influence is not an "accident". It's not something that just happened to the driver, out of bad luck, it's something he caused himself, it's something he is directly responsible for. It is not intentional but it should be severely punished. Maybe more so than the father. He killed the 2 kids but put in jeopardy every single person that he passed by when driving. Although the father's murder was intentional, and should be punished no question there, it's something anyone could do out of desparation, it's not like the father killed to amuse himself.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

100% correct.  The only thing worse than the sons dying, is the murder of the driver.  

One was accidental, the other intentional; I think the latter should be punished severely.

nunovlopes

Killing someone while driving under influence is not an "accident". It's not something that just happened to the driver, out of bad luck, it's something he caused himself, it's something he is directly responsible for. It is not intentional but it should be severely punished. Maybe more so than the father. He killed the 2 kids but put in jeopardy every single person that he passed by when driving. Although the father's murder was intentional, and should be punished no question there, it's something anyone could do out of desparation, it's not like the father killed to amuse himself.

Even with the intention factor, I strongly suspect that the drunk driver would have spent more years in jail for his actions than the aggrieved father will.

I mean, here in Australia, drunk driving causing death carries the same penalty as murder, so the driver could have been facing multiple life sentences for his actions.

Meanwhile, the father...probably wasn't in a solid state of mind at the time of the killing, so he would have a bunch of different options there. An outright murder charge seems fairly unlikely; I'd call it closer to voluntary manslaughter, or perhaps some kind of temporary insanity/involuntary action-related aquittal?

revenge amounts to nothing. i think it was a stupid thing to do.