Dad shoots/kills drunk driver

[G8trGr8t]

that had just ran into his two sons and killed them both. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-dad-accused-murdering-drunk-driver-killed-kids/story?id=18477907

A Texas father, who watched a drunk driver strike and kill his two young sons, has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting the driver in the head moments after the accident.

David Barajas, 31, was charged with murder on Monday, more than two months after his sons David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11, were killed steps from their home on a rural road outside Houston on Dec. 7.

Bond was set at $450,000, police said.

Barajas and his sons were pushing the family's disabled pickup truck toward their home late that night, as the boys' mother and two younger siblings sat inside, according to a police report released by the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department.

They were struck by Jose Banda, 20, the driver of a Chevy Malibu, instantly killing David Jr. and critically injuring Caleb, who later died at a hospital.


Would you vote to convict or not guilty by reason of insanity? What is the difference between using a 2 ton vehicle to kill somebody and using a firearm? I had a good friend that got killed by a drunk driver so it is kind of personal to me so I would probably vote to acquit. It is one reason I drive a big SUV. If a drunk driver hits us, I at least hope to have mass on my side.

[wgbgator]

I doubt he could plead insanity. Temporary insanity, maybe. But juries are pretty skeptical of that defense. I bet Texas has some pretty tough rules on using those defenses as well. Seems like pretty clear cut 2nd degree murder, IMO. My guess is that they reach a plea deal of some sort - the state probably doesnt want to take a chance on a sympathetic jury.

[rivergator]

that had just ran into his two sons and killed them both. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-dad-accused-murdering-drunk-driver-killed-kids/story?id=18477907



Would you vote to convict or not guilty by reason of insanity? What is the difference between using a 2 ton vehicle to kill somebody and using a firearm? I had a good friend that got killed by a drunk driver so it is kind of personal to me so I would probably vote to acquit. It is one reason I drive a big SUV. If a drunk driver hits us, I at least hope to have mass on my side.

I certainly understand the anger. But then you leave your wife with two young children as you head to prison.

[MichiGator2002]

Voluntary manslaughter. I mean, we are talking about moments, so at the scene where the guy had just killed his kids. I am guessing that is going to be suitable provocation.

[tegator80]

This one feels like a reduced charge (maybe involuntary manslaughter) followed by a civil suit against him by the drunk driver's family afterwards. No one is going to win in this one.

[Lawdog88]

In jury selection, prosecutors try to ferret out and exclude from the jury any juror who would "not follow the law", if the State proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

If there is an "temporary insanity" or "diminished capacity" defense in Texas, the defense attorney will be asking the prospective jury if they would reject that defense without considering it.

In short, you never know who is telling the truth. And that's just the jurors I'm talking about, fugitibut the witnesses, the police, and the defendant.

[MichiGator2002]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

[wgbgator]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

I don't know if you could say that with any certainty. Beating a man to death with bare hands is pretty physically demanding (and the article doesnt really tell me much other than he walked to his home to retrieve the weapon). Was he amped up? In good phyiscal shape? Tired from pushing a truck? Whatever the case, the gun made it easier to kill the drunk driver.

[tegator80]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

That is why we need tire iron control laws. Gabby would want it. J/K.

[rivergator]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

certainly more unlikely

[G8trGr8t]

if I had just watched some drunk driver kill my kids in front of me I would use a rock, a tire iron or just shove my fist down his throat till he choked to death. I cannot imagine the rage that could overcome a person in that situation

[Gatorrick22]

I'd sentence him to the minimum for second degree murder... Or even manslaughter.

[rivergator]

if I had just watched some drunk driver kill my kids in front of me I would use a rock, a tire iron or just shove my fist down his throat till he choked to death. I cannot imagine the rage that could overcome a person in that situation

as I said, I understand the rage. but don't you think those actions would be incredibly selfish?

[exiledgator]

I think many Texans would agree: He needed killin'.

[g8rjd]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

I think then your manslaughter is more likely to be a murder.

[T3goalie]

Quid Pro Quo!

Prosecutor would not want me on the jury... Temporary insanity or some other rationale. Two young sons killed before your eyes...

[MichiGator2002]

Quid Pro Quo!

Prosecutor would not want me on the jury... Temporary insanity or some other rationale. Two young sons killed before your eyes...

There is law that envisions just this sort of situation and still considers it criminal, just not as culpably so as what we call murder in most parts. You wouldn't follow it? He doesn't deserve to walk, he deserves not to be punished for murder.

[gator1986]

Plead temporary insanity you'll get off... Samuel L Jackson did in A Time To Kill...

[G8trGr8t]

A thinking man would have found a piece of sharp debris and relocated it to the jugular

[MastaG8r]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?If it was me and there was a gun in my car my first instinct would've been to grab it. But even under that much duress I think I would've stopped to gather my wits about me and instead of grabbing my gun...would've calmly and deliberately bashed the drunk driver's brains out on his steering wheel so it looked like he died in the accident.

[ATLitigator]

if I had just watched some drunk driver kill my kids in front of me I would use a rock, a tire iron or just shove my fist down his throat till he choked to death. I cannot imagine the rage that could overcome a person in that situation

I agree...that man would have received a beating so bad he wished he would have been shot to death

[peytiepie]

If I am on the jury...not guilty. I have no sympathy whatsoever for drunk drivers.

[gatordee]

That is awefull!! Cannot blame him at all. Not saying it is right but....

[kygator]

I certainly understand the anger. But then you leave your wife with two young children as you head to prison.

Assuming I am thinking with a reasonably clear head in that situation, I agree. It's always popular on message boards to claim you would kill someone if they did something to a family member. At some point you have to realize that you still have a family that needs you to be around. In real life, it seems, most people realize this. That's why you don't hear about as many revenge killings as you would expect if people lived by message board rules.

[adamgator96]

Tragic story. I couldn't imagine that grief.


Do we need to make driving drunk a felony to get people's attention?

[The_Graygator]

I don't know if you could say that with any certainty. Beating a man to death with bare hands is pretty physically demanding (and the article doesnt really tell me much other than he walked to his home to retrieve the weapon). Was he amped up? In good phyiscal shape? Tired from pushing a truck? Whatever the case, the gun made it easier to kill the drunk driver.


Still can't say that with any un-certainty either.

This was a crime committed under extreme emotional duress. I agree with another poster that no one is going to win in this one.

[gator1986]

He will get off, especially in Texas

[rivergator]

Assuming I am thinking with a reasonably clear head in that situation, I agree. It's always popular on message boards to claim you would kill someone if they did something to a family member. At some point you have to realize that you still have a family that needs you to be around.

Exactly. At some point a responsible person would realize that your wife and surviving children have already suffered a great loss. They don't need to lose their father, too, just because you want revenge.


In real life, it seems, most people realize this. That's why you don't hear about as many revenge killings as you would expect if people lived by message board rules.

I'm sure nowhere in real life is there as much bravado as there is on an anonymous message board. "Yeah,well if that guy did that me, he wouldn't be around long ...."

[Tasselhoff]

I think making drunk driving a felony is a great idea. Too many people die every year at the hands of drunk drivers. Far more so than die at the ha ds of deranged individuals with guns.

[T3goalie]

There is law that envisions just this sort of situation and still considers it criminal, just not as culpably so as what we call murder in most parts. You wouldn't follow it? He doesn't deserve to walk, he deserves not to be punished for murder.

Reality- You watch a drunk recklessly kill not 1 but 2 of your kids in front of your eyes and your wife's eyes. Your snap. I can't think of a worse nightmare. That is not a crime of passion as in manslaughter of a wife's lover. It is beyond that state of mind. I understand it is not murder and the prosecutor is overreaching charging him with such. No mens rea. As a parent of 3 he walks if i was on the jury and i would not lose a minute of sleep over it. Justice was served and he saved the taxpayers a boat load.

[brainstorm]

You never know what you will do in a traumatic situation until you face it. You may "think" you do but you seldom only think. You feel incredible emotion, perhaps uncontrollable, and just react.

I feel this father's pain. In context, I don't think the drunk driver deserved any sympathy. His death was certainly less tragic than the death of the boys.

[MichiGator2002]

Reality- You watch a drunk recklessly kill not 1 but 2 of your kids in front of your eyes and your wife's eyes. Your snap. I can't think of a worse nightmare. That is not a crime of passion as in manslaughter of a wife's lover. It is beyond that state of mind. I understand it is not murder and the prosecutor is overreaching charging him with such. No mens rea. As a parent of 3 he walks if i was on the jury and i would not lose a minute of sleep over it. Justice was served and he saved the taxpayers a boat load.

So would you just say voluntary manslaughter should just be pulled off the books in general? Because, again, the only reason that this wasn't cold-blooded murder was that it wasn't cold blooded, it was quite hotblooded. This is the very "you caught your wife in bed" type of scenario. It is still a homicide, it was a revenge killing. There are gradations of wrong between professional killer/serial killer and "did nothing wrong", and this is an example. This man took someone's son away from them as sure that man took his. He doesn't deserve to just walk out of court. He just isn't guilty of the top count.

[wgbgator]

Still can't say that with any un-certainty either.

This was a crime committed under extreme emotional duress. I agree with another poster that no one is going to win in this one.

Well, we do know (at least from the information provided) that whatever enraged or state of duress he was in, he went into his house to retrieve a gun rather than charge at the man with his fists or the nearest blunt object. Obviously he was of sound enough mind to retrieve the most effective means of killing rather than just fall on the man and tear him limb from limb.

Witnesses at the scene watched Barajas walk to his home and allegedly retrieve the gun with which he shot Banda, according to a police report. When police searched the home, they found a pistol holster and ammunition, but no firearm.

[rivergator]

Reality- You watch a drunk recklessly kill not 1 but 2 of your kids in front of your eyes and your wife's eyes. Your snap. I can't think of a worse nightmare. That is not a crime of passion as in manslaughter of a wife's lover. It is beyond that state of mind. I understand it is not murder and the prosecutor is overreaching charging him with such. No mens rea. As a parent of 3 he walks if i was on the jury and i would not lose a minute of sleep over it. Justice was served and he saved the taxpayers a boat load.

As a parent of 3 myself, I can understand the father's pain.But I can't condone his judge/jury/executioner role. I couldn't let him off. Especially since I understand that we are a nation of laws.

[LittleBlueLW]

I would be completely numb. Dont think Id be ablero do anything other than attend to my injured child.

Sad all around.

[corpgator]

If he had pulled his gun out and immediately opened fire, he could reasonably claim that he was afraid the guy would kill the rest of his family since he was drunk and had to stop him from doing more.

Since he walked inside to get the gun and came back, he lost the right to claim he didn't know what he was doing. He should go away for a manslaughter charge.

[cocodrilo]

Texas justice can sometimes depend on who you know. Lyndon Johnson had a henchman named Malcolm Wallace. In 1951 Wallace and golf course owner John Kinser were both having affairs with Johnson's sister Josefa. (Virtue ran in the Johnson family.) Wallace went to Kinser's golf course and shot him several times. Wallace was convicted of premeditated murder. Eleven jurors wanted the death penalty, one wanted life imprisonment. But the judge overruled the jury and gave Wallace a five-year suspended sentence.

[gatorman_07732]

You never know what you will do in a traumatic situation until you face it. You may "think" you do but you seldom only think. You feel incredible emotion, perhaps uncontrollable, and just react.

I feel this father's pain. In context, I don't think the drunk driver deserved any sympathy. His death was certainly less tragic than the death of the boys.

You are exactly right, this is a traumatic situation that nobody can consciously say how the would react. I have two youngsters and couldn't tell you for sure what my reaction would be in this situation.

[WESGATORS]

I know I may be in the minority, but David Barajas has already suffered sufficient punishment for his crime of murder. He has lost his two sons. I would rather spend life in prison or even get the death penalty than to watch my sons get murdered right in front of me. I'd say you call it a wash. Drunk driving and murdering two little children and you forfeit your right to life. No need to further punish the mom and other two kids by taking away the father as well as the two brothers.

The only reason to put him in prison would be if he is a threat to others in his community. If the nature of the threat is reserved for drunk drivers who kill children, then this man is not a burden on society (in my opinion). Prison or execution is excessive.

I do not think that what he did was right, nor do I think that is what I would do in such a situation, but I do believe that the punishment he has already suffered is much more than he deserves.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Spurffelbow833]

The takeaway: when you deprive the government of an opportunity to underpunish someone, it will overpunish you.

[T3goalie]

As a parent of 3 myself, I can understand the father's pain.But I can't condone his judge/jury/executioner role. I couldn't let him off. Especially since I understand that we are a nation of laws.

I used to believe we were a nation of laws.I was a true believer, After practicing law for 25 years (not criminal) and trying civil and Tax Court cases, i realize that that is not the case. I am not so naive anymore. Not close. all delusions are gone. You can pick up a paper and figure that our pretty fast. It took me a while however. Sad fact is that the law is a brothel. selective and political enforcement. This is not jaded this is reality. No sense turning a blind eye and getting run over,,,

That aside, In this case i believe it is excusable because of his state of mind.. And he is being charged with murder which in and of itself is a political statement because there is clearly no pre-meditation. To my point, even the prosecution process ignores the law. This is a horrible situation and the lawyers just harlots for a political statement.

You have no idea how you would react unless you faced this circumstance. My guess is that you would not be very ivory tower in your approach. Nobody is. Your would be praying on your hands and knees for your wife her boys and the strength not to do what this man did. Condone his actions? no. Punish his actions? No.

Temporary insanity seems a lot closer than a crime of passion... He lost his mind after severe trauma... He has no place in jail.

[gator10010]

This board never ceases to amaze me. I can't imagine this father's loss and the emotions he was dealing with at the time of the accident. It is a tragic series of events. The father's actions were quite selfish if you ask me.

Also, reading some of the posts on here about how Too Hot posters would behave accordingly is disappointing , while it may feel good to cater to their selfish anger, it is wrong and this father should be charged with murder.

How many of you have ever attended a party, had a couple drinks and drove home? How many of you have attended happy hour after work and then proceeded to get behind the wheel of your car? I'm fairly certain many of you have at some time or another in your life. My question is what makes you any different from this drunk driver in the article? Because you didn't get caught? Because you were lucky and didn't injure anyone on the drive home?

How righteous it must feel to be able to pass such judgments on individuals while completely ignoring your personal past lapses in judgement.

[MichiGator2002]

There is no acceptable excuse for driving the car when you have had even sort of enough alcohol to affect your coordination or judgment. If you are driving have 0-2 drinks, determined by your tolerance only, and if you feeling at all affected, FFS suck it up and either wait around where you are or get a ride and accept that the inconvenience of going back for your car is part of the price of a good time. I don't care what anybody's excuses are. Same as the texting thing. There is just not a good excuse.

[Matthanuf06]

This board never ceases to amaze me. I can't imagine this father's loss and the emotions he was dealing with at the time of the accident. It is a tragic series of events. The father's actions were quite selfish if you ask me.

Also, reading some of the posts on here about how Too Hot posters would behave accordingly is disappointing , while it may feel good to cater to their selfish anger, it is wrong and this father should be charged with murder.

How many of you have ever attended a party, had a couple drinks and drove home? How many of you have attended happy hour after work and then proceeded to get behind the wheel of your car? I'm fairly certain many of you have at some time or another in your life. My question is what makes you any different from this drunk driver in the article? Because you didn't get caught? Because you were lucky and didn't inure anyone on the drive home?

How righteous it must feel to be able to pass such judgments on individuals while completely ignoring your personal past lapses in judgement.

I get what you are saying, but it is totally false that it is "luck" when one legally impaired driver gets in an accident and when another doesn't. I'm not condoning drinking and driving but the driving skills of each drunk driver can be radically different. It's like saying every single teenage driver is terrible and they are lucky when they don't crash. Underlying driving skills is still the most important factor.

[T3goalie]

This board never ceases to amaze me. I can't imagine this father's loss and the emotions he was dealing with at the time of the accident. It is a tragic series of events. The father's actions were quite selfish if you ask me.

Also, reading some of the posts on here about how Too Hot posters would behave accordingly is disappointing , while it may feel good to cater to their selfish anger, it is wrong and this father should be charged with murder.

How many of you have ever attended a party, had a couple drinks and drove home? How many of you have attended happy hour after work and then proceeded to get behind the wheel of your car? I'm fairly certain many of you have at some time or another in your life. My question is what makes you any different from this drunk driver in the article? Because you didn't get caught? Because you were lucky and didn't inure anyone on the drive home?

How righteous it must feel to be able to pass such judgments on individuals while completely ignoring your personal past lapses in judgement.

I have had a family member killed by a drunk driver. That is what makes me different. I was not there. I

Hope you never join the club. If you do, you may understand the rage this poor man went through watching the senseless loss of his children... You have no F-ing clue. If you drive and drink i hope you get caught and rot in a cell. You apparently think this guys right to drive drunk and your right to the same self indulgence is more important to the life of others.The selfish act is that of the drunk not a father who watched his kids get slaughtered by a drunk driver.

[gatormoe1]

How similar would this be to the link below. First, I know this is molesting as opposed to drunk driving/murder, but the end result is the same.

Jerry Sandusky was lucky.

He was sentenced to 30 to 60 years on Tuesday. Not all pedophiles get that far.

Meet karate coach Jeff Doucet.

That's him, walking off a plane and into the Baton Rouge, La., airport on March 16, 1984. There's a sheriff with him. News cameras are rolling. He's accused of repeatedly molesting an 11-year-old boy, Jody Plauche, then kidnapping him to Disneyland. A rape kit proved he sodomized him more there.

Now meet Jody's dad, Gary Plauche.

That's him, waiting by a bank of pay phones. He's got a .38 snub-nosed revolver in his right boot. He's facing the wall, talking on one of the phones to his best friend, Jimmy.

"Here he comes," Gary whispered. "You're about to hear a shot."

Then Gary Plauche reached down for the gun, spun around and fired a hollow-point bullet into Doucet's brain from three feet away. Then he lowered the gun, turned around and hung up the phone. A TV camera caught it all. Doucet would be dead within 24 hours. (Editor's note: The video is powerful and discretion is advised.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8486252/a-father-justice

[gator10010]

I have had a family member killed by a drunk driver. That is what makes me different. I was not there. I

Hope you never join the club. If you do, you may understand the rage this poor man went through watching the senseless loss of his children... You have no F-ing clue. If you drive and drink i hope you get caught and rot in a cell. You apparently think this guys right to drive drunk and your right to the same self indulgence is more important to the life of others.The selfish act is that of the drunk not a father who watched his kids get slaughtered by a drunk driver.

You hope I never join the club huh? Unlike you I actually lived the club, I have witnessed a loved one die at the hands of a drunk driver right in front of my own eyes. I DO HAVE A F- ING CLUE!!! Have you ever seen a vehicle get hit at 80 mph? Have you ever seen a loved one get thrown from a vehicle, fly through the air and slide across asphalt? The guy that hit their vehicle had a bottle of whiskey riding in the front seat with him. You are F-ING lucky you weren't there!!! You are no where near the same club I'm in pal.

How dare you pass judgement on me! Your moral smugness and judgemental hypocrisy is laughable and exactly what I am talking about. My post in no way supports drinking and driving but I also don't condone murdering another human being. I don't drink never have. I have children.

You never know what demons your fellow man may be carrying and you should really stop and think before you spout off pure ignorant bliss no matter how righteous you may feel.

[gator10010]

I get what you are saying, but it is totally false that it is "luck" when one legally impaired driver gets in an accident and when another doesn't. I'm not condoning drinking and driving but the driving skills of each drunk driver can be radically different. It's like saying every single teenage driver is terrible and they are lucky when they don't crash. Underlying driving skills is still the most important factor.

I understand some people can handle their alcohol better than others but accidents happen. Even to those who may not be impaired but over the legal limit.

[MastaG8r]

This board never ceases to amaze me. I can't imagine this father's loss and the emotions he was dealing with at the time of the accident. It is a tragic series of events. The father's actions were quite selfish if you ask me.

Also, reading some of the posts on here about how Too Hot posters would behave accordingly is disappointing , while it may feel good to cater to their selfish anger, it is wrong and this father should be charged with murder.

How many of you have ever attended a party, had a couple drinks and drove home? How many of you have attended happy hour after work and then proceeded to get behind the wheel of your car? I'm fairly certain many of you have at some time or another in your life. My question is what makes you any different from this drunk driver in the article? Because you didn't get caught? Because you were lucky and didn't injure anyone on the drive home?

How righteous it must feel to be able to pass such judgments on individuals while completely ignoring your personal past lapses in judgement.10010 it is certainly true that anybody who is a so-called "social drinker" has probably gotten behind the wheel on occasions when they should not have. I'm no exception. But it was very, very wrong to do it, and I doubt too many people who have done it would not admit that. I certainly admit it, and if God forbid my drunk ass had killed two innocent children in front of their parents, I would be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. In fact in the scenario being discussed here it probably would've been a race between the father and me to see who could shoot me in the head first.

I understand what you're saying about the rule of law but your post reads like a defense of the drunk driver. There is no defense. The fact that many of us have done it is no excuse for any of us.

[Tasselhoff]

When one drinks ANY beverage that is known to impair their senses, then they forfiet the right to "it was an accident". More people are killed each year in an "accident" caused by drunk driving than by "assult rifles" (Discounting wars of course). When are we gong to wake up and take responsibilirty for our actions? "Sorry, I was a little drunk" does not bring this man's children.
To see his children die in front of his eyes
To see that it was at the hands of a drunk driver
To Know that the drive made the decision to drive while impaired
To know that the drive had to know he was putting others at risk
Willfully
Yeah, I understand how the father could kill in a fit of rage.

[gator10010]

10010 it is certainly true that anybody who is a so-called "social drinker" has probably gotten behind the wheel on occasions when they should not have. I'm no exception. But it was very, very wrong to do it, and I doubt too many people who have done it would not admit that. I certainly admit it, and if God forbid my drunk ass had killed two innocent children in front of their parents, I would be prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. In fact in the scenario being discussed here it probably would've been a race between the father and me to see who could shoot me in the head first.

I understand what you're saying about the rule of law but your post reads like a defense of the drunk driver. There is no defense. The fact that many of us have done it is no excuse for any of us.

Well I apologize if it reads like a defense of a drunk driver and it's not an excuse.

Question, if you had killed two people while driving drunk, and someone marched into their home grabbed a gun and came back and shot and killed you, how would your loved ones feel about that? Would they be willing to say this guy deserves to get off the hook for murder?

To say that this man doesn't deserve to be charged with murder is wrong.

[gator10010]

When one drinks ANY beverage that is known to impair their senses, then they forfiet the right to "it was an accident". More people are killed each year in an "accident" caused by drunk driving than by "assult rifles" (Discounting wars of course). When are we gong to wake up and take responsibilirty for our actions? "Sorry, I was a little drunk" does not bring this man's children.
To see his children die in front of his eyes
To see that it was at the hands of a drunk driver
To Know that the drive made the decision to drive while impaired
To know that the drive had to know he was putting others at risk
Willfully
Yeah, I understand how the father could kill in a fit of rage.

I understand how the father could kill in a fit of rage but my understanding of his actions does not justify his actions.

[MastaG8r]

Well I apologize if it reads like a defense of a drunk driver and it's not an excuse.

Question, if you had killed two people while driving drunk, and someone marched into their home grabbed a gun and came back and shot and killed you, how would your loved ones feel about that? Would they be willing to say this guy deserves to get off the hook for murder?

To say that this man doesn't deserve to be charged with murder is wrong.Well I don't know how my loved ones would feel about it, but speaking for myself, the last thing that would go through my head before the bullet would be the thought that I was getting what I deserved.

[PSGator66]

I understand his anger and grief but that is a bad move and he would have punished the driver more by life in jail.

[The_Graygator]

Well, we do know (at least from the information provided) that whatever enraged or state of duress he was in, he went into his house to retrieve a gun rather than charge at the man with his fists or the nearest blunt object. Obviously he was of sound enough mind to retrieve the most effective means of killing rather than just fall on the man and tear him limb from limb.


I get that, but can anyone eher actually put a time limit on emotional shock? Does that mean we can only grieve for the loss of a loved one for a precise amount of time and then stop grieving?

This all apparently happened within a few minutes. This was a man who's judgement was completely overwhelmed by emotional duress. Heck, he could have been in shock when he did what he did.

[WESGATORS]

To say that this man doesn't deserve to be charged with murder is wrong.

Legally, you are probably correct. But if we're discussing the morality of how he should be penalized for his actions, then I disagree with you. I fail to see the rational argument that would suggest that society or any of the involved families would be better off with this man behind bars or slated for execution.

If I had taken the lives of two young children on account of something as stupid as drinking and driving, I'm not sure I'd want to go on living anyway. Dude may have done the guy a favor and given him the easy way out.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MichiGator2002]

I will say it is wrong to charge him with murder, because I don't think that is what happened, depending on the timeline. The article says "moments" and "steps away" from his home. If his immediate reaction was to go get his gun and kill this man amidst the horror/outrage/anger of watching his sons fatally wounded, and he didn't check his email or feed the cat or have to walk 10 minutes each way, this seems to me pretty close to a textbook voluntary manslaughter hypo.

He deserves to go to prison, he killed a man in anger, for revenge. But he doesn't deserve, from what I can see, a murder charge.

[wgbgator]

I get that, but can anyone eher actually put a time limit on emotional shock? Does that mean we can only grieve for the loss of a loved one for a precise amount of time and then stop grieving?

This all apparently happened within a few minutes. This was a man who's judgement was completely overwhelmed by emotional duress. Heck, he could have been in shock when he did what he did.

How do you know that? That may be true, but all you and I know is what was in the article. While we may sympathize with that man's pain, you're dangerously close to rationalizing his response with that unsupported statement.

[Spurffelbow833]

Here's what I want to know. Why was the father more concerned about killing the drunk driver than he was about trying to help his critically injured son who was still alive? The time he spent exacting revenge could have been used to try to save the boy's life. He walked away from his dying child to do what he did. Don't feel too sorry for him.

[wgbgator]

Remember in the Book of Job when Job went on a killin' spree after his 10 sons were killed?

[adamgator96]

How similar would this be to the link below. First, I know this is molesting as opposed to drunk driving/murder, but the end result is the same.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8486252/a-father-justice

I remember this well. My dad said that Gary Plauche's only mistake was shooting from behind. My dad wanted the molester to see the bullet coming.

[gator10010]

Here's what I want to know. Why was the father more concerned about killing the drunk driver than he was about trying to help his critically injured son who was still alive? The time he spent exacting revenge could have been used to try to save the boy's life. He walked away from his dying child to do what he did. Don't feel too sorry for him.

This is one of the reasons I believe the father's actions to be selfish.

[reformedgator]

Remember in the Book of Job when Job went on a killin' spree after his 10 sons were killed?

My version doesn't have the killing spree but I'm sure your reference will be dismissed by some as complete fiction or some metaphorical example.

[WESGATORS]

Complete this statement:

Society is better off with this guy going to prison because ________ .

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[gator10010]

Legally, you are probably correct. But if we're discussing the morality of how he should be penalized for his actions, then I disagree with you. I fail to see the rational argument that would suggest that society or any of the involved families would be better off with this man behind bars or slated for execution.

If I had taken the lives of two young children on account of something as stupid as drinking and driving, I'm not sure I'd want to go on living anyway. Dude may have done the guy a favor and given him the easy way out.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

You are correct in that this father did provide an easy way out for this drunk driver, so who suffers now? The father is probably looking at going to prison he will suffer more, his marriage to his wife will be strained due to the lengthy separation they will face in the future. What about his wife? His wife has now lost her two sons and her husband, she will most definitely suffer. So what favor did this father do himself?

As for morality....is it moral for an individual to be judge, jury and executioner in a matter of minutes? That is a slippery slope you are entering.

[wgbgator]

Complete this statement:

Society is better off with this guy going to prison because ________ .

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

we are a society of laws, not men.

[gatorman_07732]

You are correct in that this father did provide an easy way out for this drunk driver, so who suffers now? The father is probably looking at going to prison he will suffer more, his marriage to his wife will be strained due to the lengthy separation they will face in the future. What about his wife? His wife has now lost her two sons and her husband, she will most definitely suffer. So what favor did this father do himself?

As for morality....is it moral for an individual to be judge, jury and executioner in a matter of minutes? That is a slippery slope you are entering.

His rage overcame his rationality

[gator10010]

Complete this statement:

Society is better off with this guy going to prison because ________ .

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

It's the law.

Is it fair? No does that mean this father should get a pass for his actions? No

[MichiGator2002]

Complete this statement:

Society is better off with this guy going to prison because ________ .

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Because he killed in anger, for revenge, not in defense of himself or another from future harm. Because his acts have unjustly brought the same pain to third parties that he just killed this man for bringing to him. Because the lawless killing of one individual by another is so innately harmful to the wellbeing of society that it demands punishment. Voluntary manslaughter exists as a diminished brand of homicide for a reason. If it wasn't the considered judgment of a civil society that there was something wrong with an empassioned revenge killing, it wouldn't be a crime in the first place.

[gator10010]

His rage overcame his rationality

Obviously, or at least we hope this is the case.

Rage doesn't justify killing another human being. Is it understandable? Yes. but in no way does it justify his actions.

[Dreamliner]

Not to condone this, but I can certainly understand the love of a father. And I can at least barely imagine doing something like this to someone who killed my dogs.

[tegator80]

Because he killed in anger, for revenge, not in defense of himself or another from future harm. Because his acts have unjustly brought the same pain to third parties that he just killed this man for bringing to him. Because the lawless killing of one individual by another is so innately harmful to the wellbeing of society that it demands punishment. Voluntary manslaughter exists as a diminished brand of homicide for a reason. If it wasn't the considered judgment of a civil society that there was something wrong with an empassioned revenge killing, it wouldn't be a crime in the first place.

One step further, because in many instances, the courts are used to show the citizens what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Even if the father doesn't spend one day in prison (all probation and suspended time) because of the vagarity of the case, something has to be administered so that some people don't presume that there is something to exploit. At the very least, he is going to be on the hook for some restitution towards the driver's family.

[g8rjd]

Complete this statement:

Society is better off with this guy going to prison because ________ .

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

...we don't permit vigilantism.

[Matthanuf06]

When one drinks ANY beverage that is known to impair their senses, then they forfiet the right to "it was an accident". More people are killed each year in an "accident" caused by drunk driving than by "assult rifles" (Discounting wars of course). When are we gong to wake up and take responsibilirty for our actions? "Sorry, I was a little drunk" does not bring this man's children.
To see his children die in front of his eyes
To see that it was at the hands of a drunk driver
To Know that the drive made the decision to drive while impaired
To know that the drive had to know he was putting others at risk
Willfully
Yeah, I understand how the father could kill in a fit of rage.

The truth is a great driver that is drunk may very well be a much better driver, even drunk, than many sober folks on the road. Now it is stupid to ever impair your ability to drive and then drive, but it isn't all the same.

[WESGATORS]

You are correct in that this father did provide an easy way out for this drunk driver, so who suffers now? The father is probably looking at going to prison he will suffer more, his marriage to his wife will be strained due to the lengthy separation they will face in the future. What about his wife? His wife has now lost her two sons and her husband, she will most definitely suffer. So what favor did this father do himself?

I'm not disputing the actions and the legal consequences; I'm disputing the morality involved with the proposed legal consequences.

As for morality....is it moral for an individual to be judge, jury and executioner in a matter of minutes? That is a slippery slope you are entering.

Two wrongs don't make a right...but neither do three wrongs. The best way to avoid a slippery slope is to work on a case by case basis. In this case, I think the man has suffered enough with respect to the crime he has committed.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

...we don't permit vigilantism.

Our country was founded by vigilantes. Selective vigilantism is a necessary evil that should not be considered 100% intolerable. (not saying that this action qualifies as "vigilantism" but more of a general comment about the concept).

I think "vigilante" is presumptuous in this case.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Because he killed in anger, for revenge, not in defense of himself or another from future harm.

Anger is irrelevant; if he did it with a smile on his face, that wouldn't make it any better (if anything, that would make it more disturbing).

Revenge is potentially applicable, but that's a bit presumptuous. If you swat a mosquito that bit you, it's not a revenge activity it's a natural response. It is certainly possible that "revenge" was a factor, and I would say that that is worth looking into, but punishment for revenge should be distinguishable from punishment for a reaction. If the issue were revenge, then I would agree with an increased level of punishment.

Because his acts have unjustly brought the same pain to third parties that he just killed this man for bringing to him.

I wouldn't say it's the same pain at all. The drunk driver would have brought upon the instigating action in the death that he caused, AND in the death that he received.

Because the lawless killing of one individual by another is so innately harmful to the wellbeing of society that it demands punishment.

This is a legal answer not a moral one. You are basically saying it's immoral to break the law, but my question is whether or not the law (or modifying it) would maintain a better moral standard.

Voluntary manslaughter exists as a diminished brand of homicide for a reason. If it wasn't the considered judgment of a civil society that there was something wrong with an empassioned revenge killing, it wouldn't be a crime in the first place.

Again, it's presumptuous to call it "revenge" rather than "reactionary." If it were "revenge" in nature, then I would agree. Say it's a week later, that would more clearly be "revenge." But "moments" implies that it may very well have been reactionary. But I do acknowledge a need for greater punishment with a calculated revenge plot vs. an overreaction.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Our country was founded by vigilantes. Selective vigilantism is a necessary evil that should not be considered 100% intolerable. (not saying that this action qualifies as "vigilantism" but more of a general comment about the concept).

I think "vigilante" is presumptuous in this case.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

What do you mean by this? While they may have broken with England, they didnt break with the rule of law. If they were indeed "vigilantes" I doubt they would have been compeled to write the Declaration of Independence.

[WESGATORS]

With respect to England, they were vigilantes. Do I need to get Dreamliner in here?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

With respect to England, they were vigilantes. Do I need to get Dreamliner in here?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Only if you want to play fast and loose with the definitions of words.

[T3goalie]

You hope I never join the club huh? Unlike you I actually lived the club, I have witnessed a loved one die at the hands of a drunk driver right in front of my own eyes. I DO HAVE A F- ING CLUE!!! Have you ever seen a vehicle get hit at 80 mph? Have you ever seen a loved one get thrown from a vehicle, fly through the air and slide across asphalt? The guy that hit their vehicle had a bottle of whiskey riding in the front seat with him. You are F-ING lucky you weren't there!!! You are no where near the same club I'm in pal.

How dare you pass judgement on me! Your moral smugness and judgemental hypocrisy is laughable and exactly what I am talking about. My post in no way supports drinking and driving but I also don't condone murdering another human being. I don't drink never have. I have children.

You never know what demons your fellow man may be carrying and you should really stop and think before you spout off pure ignorant bliss no matter how righteous you may feel.

Candidly, I think your full of BULLSH!T. and i sincerely hope you are.

Your post does read as a defense of drunk driving. Condemning drunk driving is not moral smugness. If you think it is judgmental to condemn drunk driving after the death of a family member at the hands of one, tough Sh!t. I don't give a rats ass. Your permissive attitude is nuts.

You claim to have seen an incident and consequences of a drunk driving carnage first hand and then you defend drinking and driving. You claim to live with the devastation of a drunk driver to surviving family members and then you defend it... You claim this and worry about the demons of the drunk driver...Are you a Friggin Lunatic?

As i said i have dealt with it first hand and been around a lot of people who like me have had to pick up the pieces of their families afterwards. I do know the demons of the survivors who try to make sense of something that makes no sense. I also know the demons of the thoughts that go through their heads of wanting to get the bastard alone in a room who killed a loved one. I also know my personal demons of wanting to rip a guys heart out after i had to tell my sisters 3 and 5 year old that their mom was not coming home again.

Nobody I have ever met who lived through it has a cavalier attitude like you. If anyone drives drunk i hope they get caught and rot in jail for the rest of your lives. And i sure as hell would never judge the poor bastard that watched his 2 young boys get killed by some as*hole who didn't give a damn. The murderer in this case is the drunk who decided to drink, who decided to drive, and killed. And i could not care less of the personal demons of the drunk driver. F him! If you think that is moral smugness, being judgmental, i guess i am guilty as charged. I can live with it.

[WESGATORS]

Only if you want to play fast and loose with the definitions of words.

I don't follow you. I stand by the claim, if it's considered "quite a stretch" to use the term to apply to what I consider to be a similar concept, then that's just a disagreement the permissible extent of the usage of the word...but the concept still holds. Either way, as I mentioned, it's not necessarily relevant to the topic as it involves a presumption.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

I don't follow you. I stand by the claim, if it's considered "quite a stretch" to use the term to apply to what I consider to be a similar concept, then that's just a disagreement the permissible extent of the usage of the word...but the concept still holds. Either way, as I mentioned, it's not necessarily relevant to the topic as it involves a presumption.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

A vigilante executes the law/justice without legal authority to do so. In what sense does that apply the founding of the country?

[WESGATORS]

A vigilante executes the law/justice without legal authority to do so. In what sense does that apply the founding of the country?

Vigilante (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante?s=t)

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

DOI:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations (crime)...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government (taking law into his or her own hands)

bold added

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

Vigilante (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante?s=t)



DOI:



bold added

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

What "law" were they taking into their own hands? I think you're conflating concepts to fit your argument WRT to "vigilantes." I mean, why don't you just argue that breaking the law to achieve x is sometimes justified? I think most people accept that notion, and it is not "vigilantism." Though, I doubt you'll get a consensus in this case.

[Gatormb]

Just to be topical, can we all agree that this guy, had he not had a gun, would have beaten this man to death with a tire iron or his bare fists?

Dang. Gotta spread the reps!

[MichiGator2002]

Anger is irrelevant; if he did it with a smile on his face, that wouldn't make it any better (if anything, that would make it more disturbing).

Revenge is potentially applicable, but that's a bit presumptuous. If you swat a mosquito that bit you, it's not a revenge activity it's a natural response. It is certainly possible that "revenge" was a factor, and I would say that that is worth looking into, but punishment for revenge should be distinguishable from punishment for a reaction. If the issue were revenge, then I would agree with an increased level of punishment.

I wouldn't say it's the same pain at all. The drunk driver would have brought upon the instigating action in the death that he caused, AND in the death that he received.

This is a legal answer not a moral one. You are basically saying it's immoral to break the law, but my question is whether or not the law (or modifying it) would maintain a better moral standard.

Again, it's presumptuous to call it "revenge" rather than "reactionary." If it were "revenge" in nature, then I would agree. Say it's a week later, that would more clearly be "revenge." But "moments" implies that it may very well have been reactionary. But I do acknowledge a need for greater punishment with a calculated revenge plot vs. an overreaction.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

If he did it with a smile, it would have been worse. What is the difficulty here? Homicide of exactly this sort is what was envisioned by the 'sudden passion' version of voluntary manslaughter -- that it is an act that would in all other senses be a clear example or murder, but for the killer having this other mental state, this less culpable mental state, fueled by this understandable rage or grief. It is a lesser crime, but it is the crime he appears to have committed. That is society's concession to what he had just been through, not a pat on the head.

Do you seriously think we should just purge that entire legal concept and set up a free pass where we once had the heat of passion rule?

[Gatormb]

How similar would this be to the link below. First, I know this is molesting as opposed to drunk driving/murder, but the end result is the same.



http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8486252/a-father-justice

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oi3Hyxuf5AE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

5 years probation.

[Minister_of_Information]

I feel for the guy, but then again he isn't Judge Dredd. He definitely committed murder and should face some nontrivial time in the pen, say 5 to 10.

[tec68]

I don't know if you could say that with any certainty. Beating a man to death with bare hands is pretty physically demanding (and the article doesnt really tell me much other than he walked to his home to retrieve the weapon). Was he amped up? In good phyiscal shape? Tired from pushing a truck? Whatever the case, the gun made it easier to kill the drunk driver.

Adrenaline would not let him be tired. A man just killed his two sons.

[gator10010]

Candidly, I think your full of BULLSH!T. and i sincerely hope you are.



Don't talk to me any more. I'm done with you.

You are the only person on my ignore list. I don't have time to deal with your insults in this conversation. For someone that has supposedly gone through this you sure are a heartless sob.

I have never defended drinking and driving. I was simply pointing out the fact that two wrongs do not make a right and this father should not get off the hook.

The demons I was referring to were my own, evidently you suck at reading comprehension. My event happened 20 years ago, I've had time to deal with my anger and loss. You on the other hand obviously need some help.

Nobody you have met may not have my attitude but you ain't met me.

[wgbgator]

Adrenaline would not let him be tired. A man just killed his two sons.

This doesnt seem like a "fight or flight" situation where he was threatened or under attack, but I'm no expert on this. Really, that's an assumption on your part as was my statement.

[tec68]

Assuming I am thinking with a reasonably clear head in that situation, I agree. It's always popular on message boards to claim you would kill someone if they did something to a family member. At some point you have to realize that you still have a family that needs you to be around. In real life, it seems, most people realize this. That's why you don't hear about as many revenge killings as you would expect if people lived by message board rules.

If he was in a different location and heard about his sons being killed I doubt he goes out looking to murder the drunk driver. He witnessed his sons die. I'm sure he wasn't in the right state of mind.

[AzCatFan]

I feel for the guy and can't imagine what I'd do in his shoes. I hope I never find out. Still, the question is, what gives this man the right to play judge, jury, and executioner? If everyone who has ever lost a loved one through the acts of another took similar revenge, it would be a never ending cycle of violence and killing. An eye for an eye until everyone is blind.

With that said, I don't believe the dad should be convicted of murder, but manslaughter seems right. He did witness an unspeakable tragedy watching two of his children die at the hands of a drunk driver.

[Lawdog88]

...we don't permit vigilantism.


Unless you are the police.

Please see, Dorner, Christopher, execution.

[brainstorm]

Unless you are the police.

Please see, Dorner, Christopher, execution.

Rep

[WESGATORS]

If he did it with a smile, it would have been worse. What is the difficulty here? Homicide of exactly this sort is what was envisioned by the 'sudden passion' version of voluntary manslaughter -- that it is an act that would in all other senses be a clear example or murder, but for the killer having this other mental state, this less culpable mental state, fueled by this understandable rage or grief. It is a lesser crime, but it is the crime he appears to have committed. That is society's concession to what he had just been through, not a pat on the head.

I don't know how you refer to it as a "pat on the head," he's lost two of his children. I believe that that is punishment enough in this particular case. You are pulling out legal concepts to address this, but we're talking about the morality of the issue. I think it's ok to write off certain reactions as "understandable," this potentially fits within that realm. Prison should be for people who are a threat to society in some capacity. If the only threat this guy poses is to drunk drivers who kill children, I don't think that should reasonably be considered dangerous to society...if anything, he's more helpful than harmful.

As I mentioned before, I understand my view is in the minority. I just disagree with how most of society may see this particular issue.

Do you seriously think we should just purge that entire legal concept and set up a free pass where we once had the heat of passion rule?

You and I have different notions of what constitutes a "free pass." Having your children murdered due to no fault of their own has to be one of the farthest things from a "free pass" I could imagine.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

5 years probation.

I think probation is a much more logical choice of punishment. The reason being that this person is not a threat to society. He was a threat to somebody who irrationally and lethally harmed his children. I think it's an important distinction.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MichiGator2002]

I don't know how you refer to it as a "pat on the head," he's lost two of his children. I believe that that is punishment enough in this particular case. You are pulling out legal concepts to address this, but we're talking about the morality of the issue. I think it's ok to write off certain reactions as "understandable," this potentially fits within that realm. Prison should be for people who are a threat to society in some capacity. If the only threat this guy poses is to drunk drivers who kill children, I don't think that should reasonably be considered dangerous to society...if anything, he's more helpful than harmful.

As I mentioned before, I understand my view is in the minority. I just disagree with how most of society may see this particular issue.

You and I have different notions of what constitutes a "free pass." Having your children murdered due to no fault of their own has to be one of the farthest things from a "free pass" I could imagine.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Him having lost his two kids, and the circumstances, are why it is manslaughter and not murder. That is all the deference it deserves, sorry. The reason I am pulling out legal concepts is because it is the law that governs. If he walks out of court instead of getting the appropriate punishment for the crime he actually did commit -- a homicide under the extreme emotional disturbance of his sons' death -- that is a pat on the head.

Again, do you think heat of passion homicide should just be... decriminalized? The killer already having been punished by whatever incited them? Because unless you do, what is your point?

[WESGATORS]

Him having lost his two kids, and the circumstances, are why it is manslaughter and not murder. That is all the deference it deserves, sorry. The reason I am pulling out legal concepts is because it is the law that governs. If he walks out of court instead of getting the appropriate punishment for the crime he actually did commit -- a homicide under the extreme emotional disturbance of his sons' death -- that is a pat on the head.

I'm obviously not challenging the legality of the situation with you guys. I'm strictly referring to the moral assessment here.

Again, do you think heat of passion homicide should just be... decriminalized? The killer already having been punished by whatever incited them? Because unless you do, what is your point?

I'm not a fan of broad-stroking crimes/penalties; I'd prefer a little more scrutiny and consideration to deviations from one case to another. So "heat of passion homicide" (to me) should not be considered a one-size-fits-all level of punishment...nor should it be considered a one-size-fits-all level of decriminalization. In this particular case, I'm in favor of less legal consideration on behalf of the drunk driver who killed two children, and I'm in favor of more leniency on behalf of the individual who had his children murdered.

Either way, I find the discussion interesting. My main point here is seeing if there is anything that I'm overlooking that may be more damaging to society than what I may be giving it credit for. I think a lot of the concerns are slippery sloped in nature. But I appreciate the opposing viewpoints, hopefully mine are not too offensive.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

What "law" were they taking into their own hands?

The law that should govern the people of the colonies.

Is your objection just with how I use the term "vigilante?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

The law that should govern the people of the colonies.

Is your objection just with how I use the term "vigilante?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Yeah, I think that was clear. I mean, they have words like "rebellion," "insurrection," "treason" and "revolution" to describe whatever the Revolution was. Even Dreamliner's "secession" claim seems more apt than "vigilante."

[Lawdog88]

Guy arguably committed a premeditated homicide (he had time to reflect with each step to and from the residence; retrieving the firearm; and in firing it; reflection sufficient to establish premeditation can be found between trigger pulls.).

Guy arguably committed a "heat of passion" manslaughter, due to the obvious circumstances.

Guy could be charged with either and convicted of either, or pardoned by the jury.

Usually the State charges with an eye to the maximum possible conviction they can get, that the facts will support.

[gator10010]

I'm obviously not challenging the legality of the situation with you guys. I'm strictly referring to the moral assessment here.



I'm not a fan of broad-stroking crimes/penalties; I'd prefer a little more scrutiny and consideration to deviations from one case to another. So "heat of passion homicide" (to me) should not be considered a one-size-fits-all level of punishment...nor should it be considered a one-size-fits-all level of decriminalization. In this particular case, I'm in favor of less legal consideration on behalf of the drunk driver who killed two children, and I'm in favor of more leniency on behalf of the individual who had his children murdered.

Either way, I find the discussion interesting. My main point here is seeing if there is anything that I'm overlooking that may be more damaging to society than what I may be giving it credit for. I think a lot of the concerns are slippery sloped in nature. But I appreciate the opposing viewpoints, hopefully mine are not too offensive.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I understand where you are coming from with "broad-stroking crimes/penalties" it is not always fair.

But where does "heat of passion homicide" line stop? Does it stop at strictly children? Can a man commit "heat of passion homicide" upon learning his wife is leaving him for another man? Can a man commit "heat of passion homicide" when he sees his dog run over by a car? Can a girl commit "heat of passion homicide" when her boyfriend sleeps with her best friend?

Also, time wise, how much of a window is allowed for this "heat of passion homicide"? Hours? Days? Months? Years?

At some point a precedent would be set legally and morally. Morally it is wrong to kill another human being.

[gator10010]

Guy arguably committed a premeditated homicide (he had time to reflect with each step to and from the residence; retrieving the firearm; and in firing it; reflection sufficient to establish premeditation can be found between trigger pulls.).

Guy arguably committed a "heat of passion" manslaughter, due to the obvious circumstances.

Guy could be charged with either and convicted of either, or pardoned by the jury.

Usually the State charges with an eye to the maximum possible conviction they can get, that the facts will support.

By your definitions it sounds like the guy committed premeditated homicide and the State will pursue the sure thing in "heat of passion" manslaughter.

[Lawdog88]

By your definitions it sounds like the guy committed premeditated homicide and the State will pursue the sure thing in "heat of passion" manslaughter.


Dunno. I think they might go premeditated, but it depends on what the Grand Jury will indict him on (assuming they use a Grand Jury for possible 1st degree cases), and / or whether the State will think the intangible sympathies are too much to overcome, and simply charge him with manslaughter.

[WESGATORS]

Yeah, I think that was clear. I mean, they have words like "rebellion," "insurrection," "treason" and "revolution" to describe whatever the Revolution was. Even Dreamliner's "secession" claim seems more apt than "vigilante."

I'm not sure what your objection is in light of the definition I provided and the context to which I believe it may be considered applicable. Ok, so we agree to disagree on the scope to which the term vigilante may be applied, no big deal. I'm not looking to get into a semantics dispute. Those other terms are applied in addition to, not instead of, from my perspective.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[brainstorm]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278848/Amy-Locane-Bovenizer-Family-victim-erupt-court-Melrose-Place-actress-sentenced-just-years-deadly-DUI-crash.html

Three years. THREE years. That is it.

[pecks]

While I was living in La during the 1990's, some guy from Baton Rouge killed a guy the police were escorting through the airport. Live on TV. Reminded me of the killing of Lee Harvey Oswell. Seems the guy had been flown in from Calif where he had been apprehended for kidnapping the mans son. He had sexually abused the kid and the father waited in the airport, walked up to the man and put a bullet in his head. They tried the man in court and he was found not-guilty and turned loose. Created quite a discussion around those parts back in the day.

[Tasselhoff]

[QUOTE=brainstorm;6411512]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278848/Amy-Locane-Bovenizer-Family-victim-erupt-court-Melrose-Place-actress-sentenced-just-years-deadly-DUI-crash.html

Three years. THREE years. That is it.

The travesty is that we as peoe have started rationalize tbis. How often do you hear...."well he had alittle to much to drink and drove off the road, couldn't find the car' lost his temper...etc....
Wehave allowed alcohol to become an excuse that covers amultitude of sins (or crimes). It lessens the severity of what was done instead of dramatically increasing it. Until it is punished in such a way that drinki g and driving is so bad so hienous that no one would dream of doing it...things like this will continue.

And before anyone says it...I ha e no problem with enjpying alcohol. Just do not drive after doing so.

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Guy arguably committed a premeditated homicide (he had time to reflect with each step to and from the residence; retrieving the firearm; and in firing it; reflection sufficient to establish premeditation can be found between trigger pulls.).

Guy arguably committed a "heat of passion" manslaughter, due to the obvious circumstances.

Guy could be charged with either and convicted of either, or pardoned by the jury.

Usually the State charges with an eye to the maximum possible conviction they can get, that the facts will support.

I'd nullify if I were on the jury.

[m9000]

We need to outlaw drunk driving- for the children. Even if it saves only 1 life.

[PIMking]

I'd sentence him to the minimum for second degree murder... Or even manslaughter.

while the guy who killed his kids would of got the same thing...

[whitelakegator]

Seems a little eye for an eye to me. Dude probably deserved the bullet but you can't have citizens meting out their own punishments or vigilantism.

And yes my avatar is very fitting for this topic.

[Spurffelbow833]

[QUOTE=brainstorm;6411512]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278848/Amy-Locane-Bovenizer-Family-victim-erupt-court-Melrose-Place-actress-sentenced-just-years-deadly-DUI-crash.html

Three years. THREE years. That is it.

The travesty is that we as peoe have started rationalize tbis. How often do you hear...."well he had alittle to much to drink and drove off the road, couldn't find the car' lost his temper...etc....
Wehave allowed alcohol to become an excuse that covers amultitude of sins (or crimes). It lessens the severity of what was done instead of dramatically increasing it. Until it is punished in such a way that drinki g and driving is so bad so hienous that no one would dream of doing it...things like this will continue.

And before anyone says it...I ha e no problem with enjpying alcohol. Just do not drive after doing so.

You're right, of course, but the bars don't rent rooms to sleep it off. The whole thing's a joke. People go out and get lit and drive home because only social drinking is considered acceptable. Yes, in order to do the proper kind of drinking, you have to be sure you have to drive after doing it.

[KelticGator]

The state should probably try giving him some kind of plea for probation because if I ended up on a jury the guy is probably going to walk. And I suspect its going to be impossible for the jury to end up with NO parents on it. Once they start presenting the circumstances of that night . . . he's going free.

[FearNoSpear]

Watching my child die would render me temporarily insane with vengeance instantly on my mind. If I was on this guys jury no way in hell would I find him guilty