Father charged with "headshot" killing of drunk driver that killed his 2 sons

[TheVrolok]

Father should be serving hard time. You simply can not murder someone in retaliation. That said, would I have done the same thing in that situation? Very possibly.

 

[JM Aggie08]

Crime of passion?

 

[skyking]

Father should be serving hard time. You simply can not murder someone in retaliation. That said, would I have done the same thing in that situation? Very possibly.

That's a common sentiment, unfortunately. He should do time, no one is served by a decline into vigilantism.

 

[stag3]

If I was on the jury there is no way I would find him guilty.

i'd love to be on this jury lol, i'd let him walk too

 

[Quakester]

Tough decision for the court system...convict or deport?

 

[klinc]

Tough decision for the court system...convict or deport?

Can he apply for citizenship when in jail?

 

[Zebo]

Tough decision for the court system...convict or deport?

He still has one anchor baby left. He had 3 boys.

 

[zinfamous]

No.






And even if it went down as you say, he doesn't deserve a free pass either. It's still not OK to murder somebody. Two wrongs don't make a right. His sons aren't going to come back because he executed the man who struck their car.

You people are sitting in this thread advocating for vigilante justice that resulted in a murder.

No, I'm not advocating murder. I was only responding to his potential for pleading insanity. His behavior doesn't appear to be a classic "crime of passion," in that he left the scene, returned, then killed the man.

I also think he should be tried for murder, because that was murder. At the same time, I can see why he did it.

 

[dustb0wlkid]

Right. Certainly aren't many 20 year old diabetics or epiletics in the world and certainly a 20 year old couldn't possibly be suffering an adverse reaction to any kind of medication at all. And certainly a car accident victim wouldn't appear to have any sort of diminished capacity of any kind.

Nope none of those are possible in a 20 year old.

Learn to read. It's possible but extremely unlikely, which is exactly what I said. Less than 1% of the population is affected by epilepsy. The probability of someone in that age group having diabetes is even lower (less than one quarter of one percent). And adverse reactions to medicine usually happen the first time you take the medication, which is usually not late at night. Diminished capacity due to an accident is the only cognizable argument, but when someone is drunk, you will smell the alcohol. Period.

 

[klinc]

I can safely promise you that I'll never wright anything in a paper. I was taught better than that, thank you.

If you have some facts that contradict the statement from the coroner's office as presented by the news outlet, please feel free to present them.

Since when is a coroner a accident expert?

His testimony is sealed and no statement about it can be released at this time

You are speculating

 

[klinc]

/facepalm wow.

Did you eat a brain tumor for breakfast?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Did you eat a brain tumor for breakfast?

You don't make sense and you act like a jackass.

 

[sixone]

Since when is a coroner a accident expert?

You are speculating

Who do you think determines the cause of death for the death certificate?

Please provide a link for your last quote - one that isn't hearsay, of course.

 

[Iron Woode]

That is hearsay

Let me explain it again.

What does “impaired driving” mean?
Impaired driving means driving a car, truck, boat, snowmobile, aircraft, train or other motor vehicle when the ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

A person can be convicted of the criminal offence of impaired driving when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the person’s impairment. Evidence might show, for example, that the person was driving very slowly or too fast, was not driving in a straight line, could not manage simple physical tasks, had slurred speech or bloodshot eyes or had breath that smelled of alcohol.

There is a reason why the officer tell a guy to walk on a line touch his nose stand on one leg etc etc. That is a impairment test.

The guy is dead. How do you do such a test on a dead body.

Now

What is the “legal limit”?

What is the “legal limit”?
When the alcohol content in a person’s blood is more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, the person can be convicted of being “over the legal limit” (being “over 80”).

In most situations, a breath test is used to determine the blood alcohol concentration. In some situations, a blood test is used to determine the concentration.

A person whose blood alcohol content is over the legal limit could be convicted even if the person didn’t act drunk or seem to be impaired.

Do you see the difference and what I am trying to explain to you from the start?

Cheers

for the love of God.

one more time to get this through what is apparently a rather thick skull, is that it doesn't matter if the guy acts drunk or not.

Impaired is impaired.

I am going to repeat what I said before: I personally know numerous alcoholics that believe they are not drunk because they don't show obvious signs of being drunk. They are still seriously impaired. I have seen it myself. It shows once they try to do something complex. It shows in their behaviour towards other people. If you don't believe me, then try taking the keys away from one or try cutting them off the booze.

The laws decides who is drunk based on medical evidence. This person's BAC was .175 and that my friend is seriously impaired.

Maybe you think that the guy who killed the drunk bastard had no way of knowing the guy was drunk? Think again. Any person with that amount of impairment will reek of alcohol. After being in that kind of accident he would also more than likely have vomited from the impact making it even more obvious alcohol was the major contributing factor.

 

[JM Aggie08]

That is hearsay

Let me explain it again.

What does “impaired driving” mean?
Impaired driving means driving a car, truck, boat, snowmobile, aircraft, train or other motor vehicle when the ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

A person can be convicted of the criminal offence of impaired driving when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the person’s impairment. Evidence might show, for example, that the person was driving very slowly or too fast, was not driving in a straight line, could not manage simple physical tasks, had slurred speech or bloodshot eyes or had breath that smelled of alcohol.

There is a reason why the officer tell a guy to walk on a line touch his nose stand on one leg etc etc. That is a impairment test.

The guy is dead. How do you do such a test on a dead body.

Now

What is the “legal limit”?

What is the “legal limit”?
When the alcohol content in a person’s blood is more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, the person can be convicted of being “over the legal limit” (being “over 80”).

In most situations, a breath test is used to determine the blood alcohol concentration. In some situations, a blood test is used to determine the concentration.

A person whose blood alcohol content is over the legal limit could be convicted even if the person didn’t act drunk or seem to be impaired.

Do you see the difference and what I am trying to explain to you from the start?

Cheers

Large, bold font does not make you any less wrong.

 

[randomrogue]

One of the places I lived had a problem where people kept getting run over at a few select crosswalks. There was no pattern. It was people on bikes, walkers, old, young, walking, etc all getting hit by young, old, and sober. They installed flashing lights and buzzers and that made things quite a bit better but I think one more person got hit until public awareness was high enough that drivers starting paying attention and pedestrians stopped walking in front of cars. I've been meaning to check back on that city since where I live now we're having a problem with people just walking into traffic while checking their facebook status on their smart phone and I'm curious if that city has the same problem.

I bring that up since I wonder how some of you would feel about someone's kids getting hit by a non-drunk driver and then just going up and killing them. Accidents happen all the time. This idea that it's ok to enact vigilante retribution though seems to be more of an emotional knee jerk reaction. I absolutely agree that if my kids got hit by a drunk driver I would want to kill the man. Caught someone molesting my kids, same thing. There's a huge difference though between saying that and doing that. Between respecting the law and taking the law into your own hands. My father used to always say that if someone hurt his kids they'd be a dead man and he'd happily sit in prison. He meant it. He knew the consequences and was fine with that.

This guy should go to prison. That's our laws. If you don't like that then the law needs to be changed to forgive crimes like this. I'm not so sure I want vigilante justice though. We had that before and it was nasty.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Not guilty, temporary insanity. Case closed. This is nothing like the pharmacist case.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

jury nullification

 

[SphinxnihpS]

No, I'm not advocating murder. I was only responding to his potential for pleading insanity. His behavior doesn't appear to be a classic "crime of passion," in that he left the scene, returned, then killed the man.

I also think he should be tried for murder, because that was murder. At the same time, I can see why he did it.

Bullshit! You lose two young kids like this and you are going to be insane for quite some time, regardless of your actions. If you are not, you were insane to begin with. Not guilty, no murder, I want this guy on the street, I'd have him to my house for dinner, I am not afraid of him, nor would I ever be, nor do I think he is at all likely to repeat this. So punish him for what? What lesson are we teaching this guy or anyone else by throwing him away?

 

[randomrogue]

You're teaching both him and everyone else that it's not ok to take the law into your own hands.

The driver would have been punished severely by the law.

 

[RPD]

I'm fine with justice like this. Fuck drunk drivers, they always seem to repeat.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Large, bold font does not make you any less wrong.

There's a pretty good chance that he is correct in his statement. Laws are going to make distinctions about impairment vs. legal limits (where impairment doesn't matter). You can believe anyone over the legal limit is by definition impaired, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is a legal distinction between the two, and short of evidence hearsay has a very broad definition. Many things in court cases that laymen would logically think are cold hard facts, meet the legal definition of hearsay, and are not considered evidence in court cases.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

You're teaching both him and everyone else that it's not ok to take the law into your own hands.

The driver would have been punished severely by the law.

Once again, temporary insanity. He did not have the capacity to make moral decisions at the time. If you think he did because of a few minutes, you're heartless. Expecting people in this situation to act in an orderly manner is silly. Once again I say I would be more afraid of someone who didn't do anything in this situation. I think what he did is completely human, normal, and expected, and therefore legal.

 

[MetalMat]

There's a pretty good chance that he is correct in his statement. Laws are going to make distinctions about impairment vs. legal limits (where impairment doesn't matter). You can believe anyone over the legal limit is by definition impaired, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is a legal distinction between the two, and short of evidence hearsay has a very broad definition. Many things in court cases that laymen would logically think are cold hard facts, meet the legal definition of hearsay, and are not considered evidence in court cases.

His BAC would have been taken at the police station regardless of refusal and it would have been used as evidence.

 

[sixone]

There's a pretty good chance that he is correct in his statement. Laws are going to make distinctions about impairment vs. legal limits (where impairment doesn't matter). You can believe anyone over the legal limit is by definition impaired, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is a legal distinction between the two, and short of evidence hearsay has a very broad definition. Many things in court cases that laymen would logically think are cold hard facts, meet the legal definition of hearsay, and are not considered evidence in court cases.

He hit a pickup truck from behind, without braking or swerving. Two children died as the result of his actions - or lack thereof.

He was impaired.