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.
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.
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?
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
DOI:
Quote:
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)
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.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
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!
__________________ 1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
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?
__________________ 1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
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.
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Galatians 2:20
“If the money changes people that much, they’re phonies to start with.”
Darvin Moon, poker pro.
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.
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.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
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.
__________________
I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.
Galatians 2:20
“If the money changes people that much, they’re phonies to start with.”
Darvin Moon, poker pro.
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.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiGator2002
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiGator2002
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.
Linear Mode
