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

[JustMe21]

The point is the law should handle it, not some person out for vengence. This kind of mentality is getting too rampant, because we also see angry or slighted people going out and killing a bunch of others then themselves as well and to them, they feel they are just as justified in doing what they did just as this dad did. Yes, it's bad that 2 kids got killed, but isn't is also bad that there may also be kids that just got deprived of a parent? On top of that, the dad may go to prison and deprive his 2 other kids of a father as well. And it's not 2 sons lost, it's 3, because the guy that was killed was someone's son too, so does that guy's father have the right to go out and kill the one who killed his son? When does the madness stop!!??

 

[Iron Woode]

I bet I can trace the time line pretty well here:

-kids and father pushing car home
-some guy in a car crashes without warning into the back of disabled car
-one kid is instantly killed and seen by the father
-other kid is severely injured and will eventually die
-father is visibly shocked
-father goes to check the other driver to assess condition
-father checks to see if guy in alright or needs help
-father discovers other driver to be stinking drunk
-father's anger boils over into a blind rage
-father goes to house to get a gun and kill the bastard that just killed one of his kids
-father also gets emergency help to show up
-drunk bastard murderer is dead

I have no problem with temporary insanity plea.

I have no sympathy for the drunk. Quite the criminal record he has, too. Considering the last act he did was a double homicide, he got what he deserved.

 

[sixone]

The point is the law should handle it, not some person out for vengence. This kind of mentality is getting too rampant, because we also see angry or slighted people going out and killing a bunch of others then themselves as well and to them, they feel they are just as justified in doing what they did just as this dad did. Yes, it's bad that 2 kids got killed, but isn't is also bad that there may also be kids that just got deprived of a parent? On top of that, the dad may go to prison and deprive his 2 other kids of a father as well. And it's not 2 sons lost, it's 3, because the guy that was killed was someone's son too, so does that guy's father have the right to go out and kill the one who killed his son? When does the madness stop!!??

To a rational person sitting in front of a computer, sure. No question.

To a father looking at his bloody children lying in the road, not so much.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

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

That's not what I nor the person whose comments I am "defending" are talking about whatsoever. That might prove his BAC, but not his impairment. Legally they are separate, that's all the poor guy said. There is other evidence which points to his impairment though, such as the fact that he crashed. The problem here is this is an emotional issue, and a couple of people didn't thoroughly read what was stated, and assumed that they were being argued against and obviously took offense. Some people's reading comprehension isn't so great sometimes. I was just trying to clarify, but it seems to have turned into a successful unintentional troll instead.:biggrin:

 

[Iron Woode]

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.

proving impairment is not required due to the fact that the law says once you are over the legal limit you are impaired.

Driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated (DWI), drunken driving, drunk driving, drink driving, operating under the influence, drinking and driving, or impaired driving is the act of driving a motor vehicle with blood levels of alcohol in excess of a legal limit ("Blood Alcohol Content", or "BAC"). Similar regulations cover driving or operating certain types of machinery while affected by drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, including, but not limited to prescription drugs. This is a criminal offense in most countries. Convictions do not necessarily involve actual driving of the vehicle.[1]

In most jurisdictions a measurement such as a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of a specific threshold level, such as 0.05% or 0.08% defines the offense, with no need to prove impairment or being under the influence of alcohol. In some jurisdictions, there is an aggravated category of the offense at a higher level e.g. 0.12%. In most countries, anyone who is convicted of injuring or killing someone while under the influence of alcohol or drugs can be heavily fined, as in France, in addition to being given a lengthy prison sentence. Some jobs have their own rules and BAC limits, for example commercial pilot, and the Federal Railroad Administration has a 0.04% limit for train crew.[2] Some jurisdictions have multiple levels of BAC; for example, the state of California has a 0.08% BAC limit, which is lowered to 0.04% if the operator holds a commercial driver's license. The California BAC limit is 0.01% for those younger than 21 years of age and those on probation for a previous DUI conviction.[3] Some large corporations have their own rules; Union Pacific Railroad has their own BAC limit of 0.02%[4] that, if violated during a random test or a for-cause test — for example, after a traffic accident — can result in termination of employment with no chance of future re-hire.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

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.

To the best of my knowledge, no one argued that he was not, just that there is a different standard of proof in law.

This is an apples and oranges discussion where it just so happens the oranges are red and the apples are orange, but that doesn't mean we can't separate them.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

proving impairment is not required due to the fact that the law says once you are over the legal limit you are impaired.

 

[BurnItDwn]

The way I see it, the father did the drunk a favor.

Ther's no way any sane person could stand the sight of themselves after killing children.

 

[sixone]

To the best of my knowledge, no one argued that he was not, just that there is a different standard of proof in law.

This is an apples and oranges discussion where it just so happens the oranges are red and the apples are orange, but that doesn't mean we can't separate them.

Yes, someone was arguing that he was not. Please feel free to follow the quote links, if you'd like to see the argument in context.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sphinx, I don't see what the facepalm is for. It doesn't matter if the individual can operate unimpaired at .08, you won't find a defense lawyer that will argue that the driver wasn't impaired. .08 is legally impaired.

My bro-in-laws operate rigs with a CDL, and in MA legally impaired for them is .04. Now these guys can drink, but they also know their limits. One beer will get them over .04 for a bit, will they be impaired? hell no...does the law care? hell no...

 

[Iron Woode]

what part of:

In most jurisdictions a measurement such as a blood alcohol content (BAC) in excess of a specific threshold level, such as 0.05% or 0.08% defines the offense, with no need to prove impairment or being under the influence of alcohol.

can't you grasp?

that is the law where I live. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes. The law is what matters.

if you don't like drunk driving laws, then feel free to change them.

 

[Heller]

tragic, rip

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Yes, someone was arguing that he was not. Please feel free to follow the quote links, if you'd like to see the argument in context.

Please provide the entire argument in quotes for me. I prefaced my first post on this subject with "to the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing that" because I didn't read the whole thread. Still I would be surprised that argument was made by the same person I am defending.

 

[MetalMat]

Sphinx, I don't see what the facepalm is for. It doesn't matter if the individual can operate unimpaired at .08, you won't find a defense lawyer that will argue that the driver wasn't impaired. .08 is legally impaired.

My bro-in-laws operate rigs with a CDL, and in MA legally impaired for them is .04. Now these guys can drink, but they also know their limits. One beer will get them over .04 for a bit, will they be impaired? hell no...does the law care? hell no...

If the MADD nazis had their way anybody with a BAC level greater than .0000001% that drives a vehicle should be arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

what part of:



can't you grasp?

that is the law where I live. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else believes. The law is what matters.

if you don't like drunk driving laws, then feel free to change them.

How about stop being a fucking idiot because I am not arguing about what you think I am arguing about? Your post does nothing to sway me because it is completely irrelevant to the argument. Do you think I am arguing this guy is innocent of something? You assuming anyone is that stupid is more stupid than anyone that stupid.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

he should have gone in the house and taken a huge swig of liquor before he came back for revenge. oh i was drunk brah

 

[SheHateMe]

I bet I can trace the time line pretty well here:

-kids and father pushing car home
-some guy in a car crashes without warning into the back of disabled car
-one kid is instantly killed and seen by the father
-other kid is severely injured and will eventually die
-father is visibly shocked
-father goes to check the other driver to assess condition
-father checks to see if guy in alright or needs help
-father discovers other driver to be stinking drunk
-father's anger boils over into a blind rage
-father goes to house to get a gun and kill the bastard that just killed one of his kids
-father also gets emergency help to show up
-drunk bastard murderer is dead

I have no problem with temporary insanity plea.

I have no sympathy for the drunk. Quite the criminal record he has, too. Considering the last act he did was a double homicide, he got what he deserved.

Yes, because going over to access the other driver and discovering he is drunk and THEN making the decision to go home and get a weapon so you can blow his brains out totally doesn't show that this guy thought all of this out.

Sorry, but temporarily insane people don't get to premeditate what they are going to do next and claim insanity.

The way I see it, the father did the drunk a favor.

Ther's no way any sane person could stand the sight of themselves after killing children.

Oh, but someone who murdered another person could stand the sight of themselves.



I hope the Dad enjoys prison.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If the MADD nazis had their way anybody with a BAC level greater than .0000001% that drives a vehicle should be arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

People love their kids that much.

 

[Iron Woode]

How about stop being a fucking idiot because I am not arguing about what you think I am arguing about? Your post does nothing to sway me because it is completely irrelevant to the argument. Do you think I am arguing this guy is innocent of something? You assuming anyone is that stupid is more stupid than anyone that stupid.

I am not talking about the drunk guy in the article.

here is the crux of the issue:

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.

The law doesn't make any distinction, at least here. Once you are at or over the limit you are finished. In fact there is really no defense. You are factually guilty by BAC alone.

that is it.

PS: no need for name calling. I hold no ill will towards anyone posting here, no matter how much they may annoy me. I do annoy easily and sometimes I get a little out of control. So I am sorry if I upset you.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yes, because going over to access the other driver and discovering he is drunk and THEN making the decision to go home and get a weapon so you can blow his brains out totally doesn't show that this guy thought all of this out.

Sorry, but temporarily insane people don't get to premeditate what they are going to do next and claim insanity.

Still on that premeditation bullshit? Grow up. He didn't wait days, months, or years to exact his revenge. It was done in the heat of the moment, while his sons lay near him fatallly injured.

Let's see what a jury of peers decides.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Yes, because going over to access the other driver and discovering he is drunk and THEN making the decision to go home and get a weapon so you can blow his brains out totally doesn't show that this guy thought all of this out.

Sorry, but temporarily insane people don't get to premeditate what they are going to do next and claim insanity.




Oh, but someone who murdered another person could stand the sight of themselves.



I hope the Dad enjoys prison.

Murder requires malice aforethought which by definition can not be present in the insane because the insane lack the ability to determine right from wrong which is a requirement for malice aforethought.

Shock and anger to the degree brought about by an incident such as this would be easily be recognized as an avenue to temporary insanity by any reasonable person.

Your lack of empathy is disturbing.

This will be an interesting trial if it gets there.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I am not talking about the drunk guy in the article.

here is the crux of the issue:



The law doesn't make any distinction, at least here. Once you are at or over the limit you are finished. In fact there is really no defense. You are factually guilty by BAC alone.

that is it.

That's exactly what I am saying, it's more complicated than that paragraph you posted in support of your position. The law on DWI is probably over 100 pages by itself. The regulations and court briefs, instructions and guides for the judiciary, obscure precedents, similar cases, and history is going to be in the multi-thousands of pages. Then there are the procedural writs in regards to evidence and hearsay and all the laws applicable to those articles in this case, and you are talking about tens of thousands of pages of legal mumbo jumbo that the average attorney has no hope of fully comprehending, much less you or me. All you posted is someone else's gross interpretation of all those things.

The BAC laws are probably more stringent than the simple impairment laws anyway.

That said, I'm certain we would come to the identical conclusion were we on the jury that will never convene to decide the issue of whether or not he was impaired, which is obviously he was.

 

[sixone]

Please provide the entire argument in quotes for me. I prefaced my first post on this subject with "to the best of my knowledge, no one is arguing that" because I didn't read the whole thread. Still I would be surprised that argument was made by the same person I am defending.

Feel free to follow the quote links. I'm not your mother.

 

[ElFenix]

sounds more akin to classic manslaughter (in the heat of the RAGE moment) than insanity.

a skillful defense lawyer could win this at jury selection.

 

[Slammy1]

I dunno, I could forgive him for beating the kid to death on the spot. I could forgive him even having the gun and firing on the spot. What he did was premeditated. He deserves jail time.
Just my $0.02