Man Kills Drunk Driver Who Killed His Kids - Your Take

Ambiturner_sl said:

I really don't understand the slippery slope argument. Do people really believe letting this guy off would cause havoc on the streets as everyone goes on killing sprees that nobody will ever be convicted of? Can't we just handle these on a case by case basis, like our justice system always has? Completely different hypothetical scenarios shouldn't take precedence over actual reality

Click to expand...

Well cases like these are not really slippery slope so much as they are academic. It's not that peoplewouldbecome lawless overnight but what you support for an ordered society. We have lawsbecausewe don't want to try endless cases of individualized justice. Emotionally he is innocent, academically he is guilty. The question becomes which side plays their part better in the trial and what evidence is available.

Its not even a slippery slope. It could not be more clear. Its axiomatic. Revenge killings, blood feuds, random expressions of violence against persons or property-- these are not permissible.

It should not require an explanation.

Well now you're just arguing what type of murder he's guilty of, not that he's innocent.

This is not permissible in a civilized society.

Edit: I don't think he should be executed for it either, and I don't know that he needs to spend 50 years in prison to repay his trespass. That's where his emotional impetus for the crime comes in, in his restitution and penance. That is a valid consideration which has a proper place. That place is not in deciding if a crime has even been committed in the first place.

Sure, I agree with you. People get away with murder pretty often.

That's not a very good argument to make murder legal, though. I think we disagree about that. I'm content to leave it to a jury and a judge. If they acquit a revenge killing I could understand it. I'd think they were wrong, obviously wrong, but I could understand it. It would do more to make me question the local police services than it would do to make me question the changeable whims of democratic justice.

Because he's still killed a guy who wasn't his to kill. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is literally that simple. The State holds the responsibility of executions to itself entirely, and it does not share that right just because something really fucked up happened. Hehassuperceded the foundational authority of the State. You don't get a 1 man revolution. You put him in jail for the same reason that you put tax evaders in jail if absolutely nothing else.

There are other arguments but they are mainly religious.

There's a difference between what's right and justice. The first should always be the priority

Doesn't sound like there's enough evidence to sway a jury even if the dad circumstances were involved. At least based on the snippet I read.

Agraza_sl said:

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

If I killed some guy's two kids, I would expect and respect the guy for offing me if I hadn't done it myself yet. If I was being charged for murdering the man who shot my two kids, I would want to be released.

Click to expand...

That is basically the most perverse twist of the bible I've seen in a long time. Kudos

supertouch_sl said:

Well, if it was in neutral then that doesn't really tell us how fast the dude was going. This whole story is weird.

Click to expand...

Actually you can easily figure out how fast he was goingif you were using the metric system

Too bad you can't math with miles, feet, yards and pounds.

uncognito_sl said:

Guilty. Kill him. Adults are responsible for their actions.

that article sucks
so the father is saying it was not him? that someone else showed up and shot the guy? a liar and a murderer. Nice

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the defense attorney says that and the father pleads the fifth.

Does that man have any more children?

Ambiturner_sl said:

There's a difference between what's right and justice. The first should always be the priority

Click to expand...

True. I happen to think that in this case they do coincide. What's Righteous, what's Just, and what's fair are sometimes three different questions. Usually they're the same question but sometimes not. This is one of those instances where you have to pick 2, because you can't get all 3.

It's not fucking fair that a drunk driver killed his kids to begin with. We completely obliterated fair at the instigation.

Palum_sl said:

So what if the guy was just under the legal limit and legitimately didn't see the pickup? If he wasn't technically driving while intoxicated and wasn't actually impaired but it was a terrible accident?I mean, I'm going to guess they couldn't get a tox report on a dead guy or didn't request it right? There's plenty of mitigating circumstances that muddy this case up. Chief among them to me is the walking back to a house and grabbing a revolver thing.

Click to expand...

This is why we have DA's Judges and Juries. Multiple steps in the legal system to apply the law based on circumstance. People tend to view laws as absolutes, but there is a lot of wiggle room in the court system just for these kinds of variables. That's a good and bad thing, but I think overall, having that human element is a good thing (But I'm firmly in the camp that I'd rather let 100 guilty people go free than jail one innocent man.)

supertouch_sl said:

Well, if it was in neutral then that doesn't really tell us how fast the dude was going. This whole story is weird.

Click to expand...

There is this magical thing called physics. They can easily figure out what speed he was going when he hit.

I've often thought DUI offenders get off far too easily. There should be a distinct difference between manslaughter caused by a genuine accident versus operator incapacitation brought on by self medication. I know far too many otherwise rational people who think nothing of driving while drunk.

I was actually hit by someone who *may* have been drinking this weekend; he looked it, for sure, and he was coming from 'dinner' at the local bar, but we didn't wait for police because nobody was hurt, the response time would have been over an hour (yay backwoods!), and he accepted full responsibility for the accident then and there, both to me and to the insurance company. He wasn't being a dick about it so I saw no reason to fuck him over as there was no doubt his insurance would be paying for everything. Plus it just so happened that a retired police officer was walking by the intersection, as well as a fire truck passing by, so the dude couldn't argue anyway as there were plenty of reliable witnesses who saw him ram me.

The entire back of my car got smashed, however, rear windshield exploded, it is a mess. If my little girl had been riding in her car seat in the back, she would have been seriously hurt or worse; I actually thought about it and realized that if something had happened to her, I would have killed that fucker then and there without a moment's hesitation. Instead, I let him off easy, secure in the knowledge he was replacing my car whether he liked it or not.

No evidence?

Easy case.