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

[Zebo]

Maybe if a few more drunks get capped between the eyes, they'll stop driving drunk?

Like if you steal in one of those middle eastern countries and they chop off your hand.

And surprisingly they still chop hands/heads every Friday still. More than ever last year in Saudi. linkSounds good in theory.

 

[shortylickens]

Banda.

(supposedly)

 

[shortylickens]

This is one of those it's wrong and he should pay but I understand.

No way should vigilante justice be allowed else we turn into gangland with blood feuds, bigger stronger meaner... law of the jungle. Think Congo.

e.g. dead mans bro now goes after dad killer and his wife. Then thier family goes after the brother ad infinitum.

Actually theres no proof anyone will go after anyone else. That whole "escalation" concept is a huge logical fallacy. It assumed too many unknowns. I also dont listen to it when the gun grabbers try arguing that way.

HOWEVER, I do believe vigilante justice is wrong in principle and causes problems. I understand why a father is mad but to me deliberate homicide is a more beastly act than accidental homicide. It cannot be tolerated.

 

[Zebo]

Actually theres no proof anyone will go after anyone else. That whole "escalation" concept is a huge logical fallacy. It assumed too many unknowns. I also dont listen to it when the gun grabbers try arguing that way.

HOWEVER, I do believe vigilante justice is wrong in principle and causes problems. I understand why a father is mad but to me deliberate homicide is a more beastly act than accidental homicide. It cannot be tolerated.

How's it a logical facially? Explain. Which one? And how does it relate to gun grabbers?

It happens all the time where law and order is gone. Some gangs require you kill someone who wronged them at one time or another to even join. Happened forever too. Ever heard of Hatfields and McCoys?

 

[randomrogue]

If he walked up to the car and determined that the guy was drunk, then went to his house, got the gun, and killed him I'd say he's guilty of manslaughter.

If he didn't walk up to the car I'd say he's guilty of murder. Accidents happen. Allergic reactions, blood clots, and just plain and simple accidents.

I'm not saying I wouldn't rage if I was in his situation but that doesn't make it right. We live in a country where you're not supposed to take the law into your own hands. Look at the Dorner drama. He's like Rambo. I cheer him on for fun but what he's doing is desperate, revenge, and not justice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We need to ban guns, but congratulations for using one!

There's a saying from a book to the effect of do what you must but be prepared to accept the consequences.

I'm sympathetic to the father. If there had been willful murder involved I might have done the same, however the choice determines the outcome.

I suspect he'll get a plea to a much lesser crime and do a year.

 

[klinc]

And yet, you can't spell the word "prove". I take leave to doubt your claims.

The evidence shows that the cars driver was DRUNK - legally and factually. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Alvin-dad-accused-of-driver-s-revenge-killing-4269065.php

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&#8221.

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

 

[SP33Demon]

Good move. So now not only is his wife going to be raising his other son and daughter alone but those kids are going to grow up only knowing their father through the bars of a prison cell.



Why wouldn't he be? He murdered someone. Pretty sure that is illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

He also saved you, as a taxpayer, a lot of money to pay for the schmuck who would have been in prison for a long time for vehicular homicide. With any luck, a jury won't make us support him in prison instead.

 

[SP33Demon]

Dude, the guy was drunk and half passed out in the driver seat after the crash from the sound of it. He had to be if the dad was able to go to the house, get the gun, come back out, walk up to the vehicle, and blast the guy in the head at virtually point blank. The drunk dude wasn't running anywhere. Not like he could run too well with a BAC that high anyway.

We don't know that's what happened. The guy could have said something to the father to set him off. Since he's dead we'll never know the full story.

 

[surfsatwerk]

tacos

 

[MetalMat]

If he walked up to the car and determined that the guy was drunk, then went to his house, got the gun, and killed him I'd say he's guilty of manslaughter.

If he didn't walk up to the car I'd say he's guilty of murder. Accidents happen. Allergic reactions, blood clots, and just plain and simple accidents.

I'm not saying I wouldn't rage if I was in his situation but that doesn't make it right. We live in a country where you're not supposed to take the law into your own hands. Look at the Dorner drama. He's like Rambo. I cheer him on for fun but what he's doing is desperate, revenge, and not justice.

It would have been hard to determine if the guy was drunk or not. The father shot the driver in the head while he was still behind the wheel. Go look at the picture, his car was totally fucked, the driver was going nowhere. They said that the father and his children were both pinned between the two vehicles in the wreck, its amazing that the Father did not get seriously injured as well.

 

[sixone]

That is hearsay

Let me explain it again.

Crime scene evidence is NOT hearsay. Lack of skid marks IS evidence, not hearsay. The angle that the car hit the pickup IS evidence, not hearsay.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You seem to be more interested in your font size than in FACTS.

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah looking at the pictures and reading another report it sounds like he never walked up to the car. He just went and got his gun and murdered the guy.

Very tragic story.

Other countries have laws on the books for crimes of passion. We don't. If your kids get molested or killed you can't take the law into your own hands.

3 lives lost. Many ruined. Lose-Lose.

 

[sixone]

Sorry, but everyone arguing for this guy is messed up... We don't get to just kill people who wrong us. We have a system that we appointed and agreed on at one point that decides the fate of these assholes... if you don't like the system either try to change it or get the fuck out of any civilized country.

No, the asshole driving shouldn't have been... but that is no excuse for another asshole to shoot him. If you think it is, then you are insane and probably shouldn't be allowed to own or use a gun.. end of story

You're absolutely right about that.

But think about what that father saw, that night. His two boys horribly injured, blood everywhere.

If you can't understand why he would react badly, then you are emotionally compromised and probably shouldn't be allowed to have children...end of story.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Crime scene evidence is NOT hearsay. Lack of skid marks IS evidence, not hearsay. The angle that the car hit the pickup IS evidence, not hearsay.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You seem to be more interested in your font size than in FACTS.

Lack of skidmarks is evidence that the brakes were not applied, not why they were not applied. It is no more an indicator of impairment than it is an indicator of a mechanical failure.

 

[SP33Demon]

Crime scene evidence is NOT hearsay. Lack of skid marks IS evidence, not hearsay. The angle that the car hit the pickup IS evidence, not hearsay.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You seem to be more interested in your font size than in FACTS.

Totally agree with this. Six, you have a Valentine yet?

 

[klinc]

Crime scene evidence is NOT hearsay. Lack of skid marks IS evidence, not hearsay. The angle that the car hit the pickup IS evidence, not hearsay.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You seem to be more interested in your font size than in FACTS.

If I tell you something and you go write it in a paper can it be used as evidence or would it be hearsay?

No need to get upset but things that the papers report are opinions not facts. No need to go keyboard gangster on my ass and shoot in caps IMO

 

[sixone]

Lack of skidmarks is evidence that the brakes were not applied, not why they were not applied. It is no more an indicator of impairment than it is an indicator of a mechanical failure.

It is when you look at those facts in conjunction with the fact that his blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. Occam's razor.

 

[waggy]

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

/facepalm wow.

 

[sixone]

If I tell you something and you go wright it in a paper can it be used as evidence or would it be hearsay?

No need to get upset but things that the papers report are opinions not facts. No need to go keyboard gangster on my ass and shoot in caps IMO

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.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It is when you look at those facts in conjunction with the fact that his blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit. Occam's razor.

Yes but his BAC was determined well after the events were completed. People are taking what was determined by medical evaluation and applying it to the immediate information available at the scene.

 

[MetalMat]

You're absolutely right about that.

But think about what that father saw, that night. His two boys horribly injured, blood everywhere.

If you can't understand why he would react badly, then you are emotionally compromised and probably shouldn't be allowed to have children...end of story.

I agree, I know nothing about the Father but I would like to think he was generally a good guy and the whole situation really sucks for him and his family now. He was out with his family on a Friday night and then an idiot 20 year old kills his two kids. No one in there right mind could not blame the Father for going insane, he saw his 2 sons get crushed to death. But he let his rage get the best of him and there will be consequences.

 

[sixone]

Yes but his BAC was determined well after the events were completed. People are taking what was determined by medical evaluation and applying it to the immediate information available at the scene.

Sure they are. It's difficult to put themselves in the father's shoes, to imagine what was going through the father's mind in the minutes immediately following the crash. In one horrible instant, his children are injured, bloody - one of them may have been killed instantly. That's more than enough trauma to screw with anyone's head.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

If the guy was really hammered he might not feel as if anything was wrong even after plowing through the guys family. I only know this because some guy hit me basically head on while driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. You should have seen the look on his face after the accident. It was emotionless.

 

[waggy]

I agree, I know nothing about the Father but I would like to think he was generally a good guy and the whole situation really sucks for him and his family now. He was out with his family on a Friday night and then an idiot 20 year old kills his two kids. No one in there right mind could not blame the Father for going insane, he saw his 2 sons get crushed to death. But he let his rage get the best of him and there will be consequences.

sure there will. I just hope the consequences are light. i can't blame the father. who knows what a person would do in that situation. really fucked up.


To think this could have been avoided is the fucker didn't drink and drive.