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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
sixone said:
If visibility is impaired for any reason, it's the DRIVER's responsibility to adjust his speed accordingly, so that he DOES have time to stop.
Click to expand...

How does one prepare for a vehicle that is not moving? There is a reasonable expectation that vehicles on the roads are adhering to rules of the road themselves, and are operating within published safety limits.

He has a reasonable expectation to not come out of impaired terrain and see a completely stopped car being pushed by people in his way.
 
N

ND40oz

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2004
1,264
0
86
diesbudt

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Genx87 said:
How does one prepare for a vehicle that is not moving? There is a reasonable expectation that vehicles on the roads are adhering to rules of the road themselves, and are operating within published safety limits.

He has a reasonable expectation to not come out of impaired terrain and see a completely stopped car being pushed by people in his way.
Click to expand...

Does not matter. The driver is responsible for all safety in and around his car and where he drives. If they are passing X it is their repsonibility to do Y. It is always their responsibility. This is taught in that silly drivers ED school.

The only time(s) it is not your responsibility is if lets say godzilla, a tornado, king kong, or some other force/supernatural force picked your car up with you in it, and chucked it into a target thus killing or damaging something.

As a driver you haev to prepare for the unexpected. Be a defensive driver. (aka aware and keep an eye out)
 
D

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I hope the attorney general does the right thing and decides not to charge this man. This is what the community wants.
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
diesbudt said:
Incorrect information.

The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of cases. Not that it is only 1% successful. (when it has been used it has a 26% success rate)

Also temporary insanity? Is a very good defense as long as said action happened in a small tiem frame from an event that can hamper ones thought process.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. However it appears it has a 1 in 4 chance of success and of the successful use 9 of 10 defendents were previously diagnosed with mental illness. I guess if this guy tries this he better hope to have been previously been diagnosed with mental illness. Of course then he opens up other problems. Like owning a gun with a mental illness.
 
waggy

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Genx87 said:
How does one prepare for a vehicle that is not moving? There is a reasonable expectation that vehicles on the roads are adhering to rules of the road themselves, and are operating within published safety limits.

He has a reasonable expectation to not come out of impaired terrain and see a completely stopped car being pushed by people in his way.
Click to expand...

easy the fucking pay attention to the road. shit happens and sometimes car stall and stop.

pay the fuck attention.

it's rather easy.
 
ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,332
20,038
146
Genx87 said:
How does one prepare for a vehicle that is not moving? There is a reasonable expectation that vehicles on the roads are adhering to rules of the road themselves, and are operating within published safety limits.

He has a reasonable expectation to not come out of impaired terrain and see a completely stopped car being pushed by people in his way.
Click to expand...

no he doesn't. no driver should ever operate under any kind of reasonable expectation. you never know what's around the next corner, or who's going to do what, etc...the driver needs to operate the vehicle safely because it's their ass on the line.

tell ya what, go hit a parked car and see who get's blamed for it!
 
G

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
diesbudt said:
Does not matter. The driver is responsible for all safety in and around his car and where he drives. If they are passing X it is their repsonibility to do Y. It is always their responsibility. This is taught in that silly drivers ED school.

The only time(s) it is not your responsibility is if lets say godzilla, a tornado, king kong, or some other force/supernatural force picked your car up with you in it, and chucked it into a target thus killing or damaging something.

As a driver you haev to prepare for the unexpected. Be a defensive driver. (aka aware and keep an eye out)
Click to expand...

I think this is a gray area. You cant reasonably expect to stop a car from driving the speed limit if you come across an obstacle that is not visible due to terrain. The blanket it is always your fault I think would fail that litmus test.
 
diesbudt

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Genx87 said:
I stand corrected. However it appears it has a 1 in 4 chance of success and of the successful use 9 of 10 defendents were previously diagnosed with mental illness. I guess if this guy tries this he better hope to have been previously been diagnosed with mental illness. Of course then he opens up other problems. Like owning a gun with a mental illness.
Click to expand...

Normal insanity pleas, has the 9/10 defendents were previously diagnosied. However temporary insanity, which is extremely rare used, as most lawyers would recommend against it as if you have even a few hours between cause and effect, it can be used against them that they should have "sobered" up on it enough to be logical.

However what sounds like was minutes between the 2, it is plausible. Granted look at my posts earlier as I never said he would win, just that he has a likely case with temp. insanity.
 
skyking

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,685
5,807
146
There is no litmus test. Nobody else can affect the outcome, the missile is under your guidance.
 
diesbudt

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Genx87 said:
I think this is a gray area. You cant reasonably expect to stop a car from driving the speed limit if you come across an obstacle that is not visible due to terrain. The blanket it is always your fault I think would fail that litmus test.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you looked at google maps on the roads, it is pretty long and straight-ish around that area. It isn't like he just rounded up over a hill which is blind and they were just at the downhill side of it. And it is your guidance. hence the defensive driver. Use caution.

If your coming to an obsticle that hinders your vision, it is your job to do what it takes to ensure safety for everyone. Even blind spots. (slow down, honk horn loudly, etc.)

This is also why the driving test is a joke. They should really force people through a blind spot or 2 and see if they do what it takes to prevent issues.

Now, if the driver (sober) was to leave a blind spot, and all the sudden see people/stopped car on the side of the road unexpectadly and he was to dodge them and hit some other property/thing, you could question that the people in the road were causing a hazard.
 
Last edited:
klinc

klinc

Senior member
Jan 30, 2011
555
0
0
Genx87 said:
If people are pushing a car on a dark road they are putting themselves and other drivers in danger. "Reckless driving" implies the driver is acting reckless. I dont think hitting a guy pushing a dead car on the road after dark is "reckless". That is an unfortunate situation brought on by somebody's negligent behavior of not moving the car off the road and waiting until the day to do this.

Pushing the father over the edge isnt a defense anyways.
Click to expand...

Driving reckless is when someone is injured.
Culpable homicide or as its called in the USA Manslaughter is when people have died.

They can determine by skidmarks if he drove at a speed. But what is speed limit on such a dark road and you have to drive with caution so that you have enough time to avoid a accident or bring the vehicle to a halt.

Find it hard to believe how a person can not see another vehicle moving slowly or stationary when you have headlights. Unless your vision is impaired or your under the influence of something. But pathologist will take care of that.

For the shooter the gun residue test will lift him out so he will probably give up the gun for a better deal
 
P

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,304
2
0
Genx87 said:
I think this is a gray area. You cant reasonably expect to stop a car from driving the speed limit if you come across an obstacle that is not visible due to terrain. The blanket it is always your fault I think would fail that litmus test.
Click to expand...

Wtf'ing am I reading...

So it's cool to drive 2 tons of glass and steel with no regard for road conditions/line of sight/etc?
 
P

PrinceofWands

Lifer
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Were I on the jury they'd have to nudge me at the end so I could wake up long enough to vote Not Guilty. Anyone kills someone I care about, I kill them. Sincere sympathy for the family, and hope he beats it.
 
klinc

klinc

Senior member
Jan 30, 2011
555
0
0
sixone said:
The coroner already did. Read the posts above.
Click to expand...

no that do not proof he was drunk. That proofs he was driving above the legal limit of xxxx. But not that he was drunk. You can drink about 10 beers and still be sober and another guy might get pissed on 1 beer.

So there is no way to see if a person was drunk. That is why most of the time they nail you only on the alternative charge of driving above the legal limit of xxxx
 
P

PrinceofWands

Lifer
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
klinc said:
no that do not proof he was drunk. That proofs he was driving above the legal limit of xxxx. But not that he was drunk. You can drink about 10 beers and still be sober and another guy might get pissed on 1 beer.

So there is no way to see if a person was drunk. That is why most of the time they nail you only on the alternative charge of driving above the legal limit of xxxx
Click to expand...

If someone drives after drinking they should be executed. Period. At that point they've been proved a useless waste of flesh and threat to all mankind. Put them down like any rabid dog.
 
sixone

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,030
5
61
klinc said:
no that do not proof he was drunk. That proofs he was driving above the legal limit of xxxx. But not that he was drunk. You can drink about 10 beers and still be sober and another guy might get pissed on 1 beer.

So there is no way to see if a person was drunk. That is why most of the time they nail you only on the alternative charge of driving above the legal limit of xxxx
Click to expand...

According to the legal definition, he was drunk.

His actions support that assessment. Two little boys are dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom