Father kills drunk driver that killed his 2 children.

[JRPLANE]

After reading all of this and the links, I would have no problem with setting this man free, if the drivers tox screen show alcohol or drugs. This thought in our society that a slap on the wrist because "I didn't mean to" is acceptable, it doesn't bring back the dead. Accidents happen, deaths caused by alcohol or drugs should be met with much worse fate. If the consequence
of your action was certain death, would you refrain from this behavior? I think many would.

 

[tom1025]

Revenge is against the rules, if one subscribes to some of the more popular religious beliefs.

And then we have our laws.

The posts of "I might do the same" are disturbing.

Admitting that possible lack of control (IMHO) means you shouldn't have a freakin' gun.

Your post is disturbing to me. It's easy to set back and take the all high and mighty stance until it happens to your family. It's been almost two years since my 13 year-old daughter was killed by a hit and run driver. Since that moment our lives instantly changed. You start to question your beliefs, morals and everything else you try to live by. Until you tragically loose a child there is no way you'll ever be able to wrap your head around the emotions and the impact it will have on a person's life.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Tom -

First, my sympathy for your loss. I have no doubt that what you say is true. I'm sure that the rest of us (who have been fortunate enough not to have to go through that) cannot imagine what it's like to lose a child, especially under such needless circumstances.

As I said before - I would tend to have sympathy for the father in this case. That said, the smarter course of action is to let the law deal with it, and to forgive to the degree possible. To say that is "not easy" doesn't do it justice, I'm sure. I can also imagine that in your case, a hit and run make it extra hard, since there is no closure to that. Prayers for you and your family, sir. May you have the strength you need.

 

[roisigns]

This thread does not belong in 2nd Amendment.

 

[Hajisc]

An eye for an eye, I'm sorry to admit it but would have done the same thing.The thought of the guy living ,even in jail would torment me every day of my life.

 

[HICKMAN]

Temporary Insanity.

 

[RockofStrength]

Your post is disturbing to me. It's easy to set back and take the all high and mighty stance until it happens to your family. It's been almost two years since my 13 year-old daughter was killed by a hit and run driver. Since that moment our lives instantly changed. You start to question your beliefs, morals and everything else you try to live by. Until you tragically loose a child there is no way you'll ever be able to wrap your head around the emotions and the impact it will have on a person's life.

I honestly cannot imagine losing someone like that: all family I have lost have died well into old age and in many cases given over to dementia.

But right is right and wrong is wrong. It's why we don't define what's right based on emotion: given the right circumstances anything can be emotionally justified. It's not high-and-mighty to say that what that man did is vengeance and not justice. To suggest that you wouldn't react the same way and calling the man weak, on the other hand, is, but that is not what was said.

 

[JettaKnight]

This thread does not belong in 2nd Amendment.

Winner of 'Best Comment'. Unfortunately, the concept of categories eludes a lot of posters here at INGO.

I would be the same way. Father should be acquitted.

Winner of 'Worst Comment'. Where do you draw the line at vigilante justice? Two children? Death of a child or maybe even broken legs? What if the driver was drunk? Maybe just texting? Or maybe just didn't see you and your boys because of a tight curve in the dark.

You would sacrifice you wife and other children's welfare for revenge?

Honestly, this only strengthens the claim that guns allow altercations to easily lead to death. Maybe Bob Costas is right. Why do we have home defense guns? To defend our homes, not to met out immediate justice as we see fit.

Here's a twist: Imagine it's your son driving the car. And someone else shot him because of a auto collision like this. Are you now going to hunt down the shooter and kill him? Are you still going to claim he shouldn't be charged with a crime?

I don't want to break any INGO rules, but there's a strong lack of moral fiber here that mirrors society. Sure, we think we control the high ground because we're all conservative gun owners; but, we aren't much different than the people we claim as our enemies. Who was it that said the laws of a nation are only as strong as the morality of the citizens?

And to all those that say, "you never know what you'd do" I say poppycock. Patterns are ingrained through practice. If I practice righteousness and loving my fellow man then there is a high probability that the same pattern will be continued in a situation like this. However, if I have the attitude that people are scum and should be tar and feathered, killed, hung, etc.* then my actions will follow.




* See General Political Discussion for examples of this rhetoric.

 

[92ThoStro]

We recently went over this stuff in Criminology. Texas uses the Substantial Capacity test. " The lack of a substantial capacity to control one's behavior...The defendant either had or lacked "the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of his act or to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law"

Some have mentioned temporary insanity, Texas' version is Not Guilty Due to Lack of Criminal Responsibility. It is hard to remember every state. Usually the defendant proves a lack of substantial capacity because they are believed to be sane at the start of the trial. But for lack of criminal responsibility, which is like temporary insanity, I think the state has to prove he was sane during commission of the act. Because at the trial, he is not denying he is sane currently. The jury is instructed to vote accordingly, depending on if there is proof, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane when he returned with the gun. They use "Temporary Insanity" to refer to mitigating circumstances like being intoxicated. Which is why they use criminal responsibility to refer to what most people think of temporary insanity.


It depends on how far away the father lived really. If the father was in front of his house, I could see him being acquitted. But if the father walked a good distance, got his gun, walked back, and killed the driver. He should go to prison, I don't believe he has the right to execute someone. Especially after walking away from the incident.

There was a case awhile back, where a father beat the child molester to death, he didn't go back inside his house, and execute the man. He saw what happened, and was out of his mind with rage. After repeated blows to the head I believe it was, the man died. But the case currently, I don't think the father has as good of a chance of getting off with no convictions. He probably had time to think.

People who say he got what he deserved, and you would do the same. I don't think that is a good stand to take. Vigilantes are the last thing we need to give to the left. Do you think it helps to preserve your right to bear arms, when law abiding gun owners seek revenge, instead of allowing due process to take effect? You can't be cop, judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time.

I can say that I wouldn't execute someone, but something like this has never happened to me. I do not know what the feeling is like. People that have had bad things like this happen in front of them say they black out, or can't remember it, or they were just so enraged they couldn't think rationally.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Whether I agree with some of the posts here or disagree I am glad we can be open about our thoughts and positions, otherwise we cannot discuss a difficult topic rationally.

One of the primary reasons we pass laws and rules is to avoid making decisions while under extreme emotional distress. We don't want to write our living will out as we face death on our deathbed. Rather, we write our living will out over the kitchen table after taking much time and deliberation to consider things with a clear mind and rational thinking because we know we won't make the best decisions when facing eternity.

The same goes for our laws. We put ourselves and our lawmakers into positions of safety and comfort so that thinking, not emotion, will govern the process. Obviously this doesn't always work but the concept is sound and logical.

When we make decisions under fear we pass things like the Patriot Act.

When we make decisions in outrage we call for gun control like post Sandy Hook and post Aurora.

When we take our time and remove as much emotion as we can to apply clear thinking we make better decisions.

The point I am trying to make is that no matter how much sympathy we have for the fathers emotional distress we should not allow that to cloud our judgement regarding the reality that his actions were clearly wrong. Not because a drunk driver doesn't deserve punishment but because we DO NOT KNOW if the driver was drunk! There are conditions as previously mention that can appear drunk when the person is not drunk. Even if the driver was drunk, how drunk? Was the drinking the only factor that contributed to the accident? The article says the father and sons were pushing a truck. Were they around a blind curve that no one could see? Did the fathers actions, without any malice but rather poor planning, contribute more to the death of his sons than the driver?

While I do not know the answer to these questions I do know that the purpose of our courts and legal system is to try to find these answers before rendering judgement.

Without knowing all of the facts of the case if I were on the jury for the father I would feel sympathy and remorse for his loss. I may find some mitigation to explain his behavior. With that in mind I would be glad to be in a jury room shielded from the majority of the emotions of the trial to make a decision based upon law and logic, not upon emotion.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

I understand wanting to do harm to the driver, however actually doing harm to the driver is unacceptable. If you expect police to avoid being judge, jury, and executioner (ala the Dorner fiasco), you should expect the same of yourself and others.

 

[Hookeye]

Many people have lost children and continue to live (be productive, contribute to society, and dare I say it, maybe even find joy).

If one is a believer, then one can reportedly conquer anything with His help.

BTW, revenge is a poison.

Bad stuff can happen, and it might be really trying at times, maybe for long periods of time, but we don't need to make it worse.

Unless of course one is of a victim mindset.

Which is kind of the way I view some of the emotionalist statements being tossed about. Or are they defeatist?

I have never lost a child, but have experienced the loss of unborn, and one time from non natural event. That's all I'm going to say on that matter.

If one is breathing then their life isn't over. They can decide to wallow in misery and p*ss their gift away if they want.

 

[DragonGunner]

I have 2 grown sons....I can't say what I wouldn't of done, or what I would of done. Its sad that we don't do more to drunk drivers....loose your license for life an a yr. in prison first offense....you kill someone, you get death penalty. Because we are too soft on justice we continue down this road. Wish I was on the jury.....not guilty. Thats what I think of drunks who don't give a crap about anybody else when they get behind the wheel......and some people still call it a accident. In fact its just plain sad that most murders do only a few yrs. and get out.....all wrong, just plain wrong. Whose the idiot that came up with that crap?

 

[Hookeye]

So what if your grown son had 2 beers and is coming home from dinner, some kid on a bike wearing dark clothes cuts out in front of him in the dark, no helmet, wrong direction and maybe even high..........and your son's bumper makes him bonk his head on the curb and die?

The kid on the bike did everything illegal.

The 2 beers and 150 lb says at or over .1............

Drunk so therefore a murderer right?

OR if you kid was on the cell and did it, that would make the bike rider less dead?

I am not in favor of blanket punishment/laws. There may be other factors to consider.

 

[public servant]

Drunk so therefore a murderer right?

Yes

 

[Hookeye]

Awesome. I hope you never sit on a jury.

Note that in my prev post example I never said the alcohol was a factor in the event, just that the driver was at or slightly over the legal limit, and that the deceased in the scenario had broken multiple laws and his actions were mostly if not completely contributing to the end result.

 

[rambone]

Beware of the Dark Side. Hard to see the Dark Side is, it is tempting. Quick, easy at first, but a trap it is. Corrupting, evil. Once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Beware of the Dark Side. Hard to see the Dark Side is, it is tempting. Quick, easy at first, but a trap it is. Corrupting, evil. Once you start down the Dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Yes... First you start photoshopping pictures to make a point... the next thing you know , you have an avatar like Printcraft's...


Dangerous the Dark Side is....

 

[sepe]

My moral code does not allow me to take revenge. And especially at that level - to the point of taking a life. Would I be sympathetic to this man? Absolutely. But it is way smarter to do as the Amish folks did in Pennsylvania when their kids were murdered. Forgive. Immediately. Very hard to do - but it will protect the sanity of the person that forgives. Revenge does not bring anyone back. Bitterness and anger only make life worse for the survivors.

And when I say "forgive" , I don't necessarily mean in a religious sense. For the atheists and agnostics among us, that could just as easily be worded "let it go". It simply is a principle that works.

For the record, my moral code DOES allow me to Protect to the point of taking life. Hence I carry. But if for any reason - a drunk driver, or some other idiot gets past my protective influence and harms my loved ones (God forbid) - forgiveness trumps revenge. Even if that's a brutally hard thing to do.

I'm be willing to bet that most here that have said they would have done the same thing as pops are also some that claim to be fairly religious. I'm one of the non-believing heathens that thinks two wrongs don't make a right and pops also helped ruin his other two kids and wife's life that day. If anyone is hoping pops gets off in this case, it should be for the sake of his other two children.

As far as protecting to the point of taking a life, running into the house and grabbing a gun isn't that. At that point it is revenge.

 

[Survivalcookie]

I think this guy could get off with temporary insanity...If you have ever seen someone hurt your child let alone kill them, you would know an uncontrollable rage. It is true insanity.