Dad shoots/kills drunk driver

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by 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.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[reformedgator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by gator10010

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Complete this statement:

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

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

...we don't permit vigilantism.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gator10010

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.

Originally Posted by gator10010

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]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

...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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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.

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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.

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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.

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

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.