| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
secretcorporation
n00b
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 70
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:07 am Post subject: Re: Drunk Driver Kills Two Children, Gets Killed by Father |
 |
|
| Muso wrote: | | juniper wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | Article
Works for me. |
I'd acquit him were I on the jury. |
Really? I am somewhat with BK on this one. It's a murder, but in the heat of the moment. Clearly he was off his head and didn't plan on it. But, he shot and killed a likely defenceless person who posed no threat. |
A drunk who just took out his two children. No mercy for that kind of shit, ever. |
Why don't we get rid of courts altogether, we could lower taxes. Also let's introduce "stand your ground" for pedestrians, they can open fire if they suspect the car coming towards them is driven by a drunk driver. The elite just want us to be like England where drunk drivers are free to kill with impunity.
_________________
In the land of the free you are only one party away from dictatorship at any time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | mcgruff wrote: | | The car crash was an accident. |
Not when you're drunk it isn't. |
in liberal land, "the drunk driver who stupidly slaughtered 2 children with his card" is the victim.
back here in the real world, i would acquit the father in a heartbeat. |
who said he is the victim?
It's the principle. Perhaps it was clear in this case he was drunk, but it isn't always clear. I once got rear ended by a guy, and I got out of the car to see him and he looked dead drunk to me (he was slurring his speech, could barely talk). Was he though? No. He was a diabetic who had severely low blood sugar and almost passed out I was later told. Luckily I came to my senses, because I had my colt .45 drawn aimed at his head 
Shoot first think later seems to be the conservative model. When justice is meted out in 7 seconds mistakes will be made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Drunk, distracted, uncoordinated, or just plain stupid, it makes no difference. The driver just killed two children. Somebody with a medical condition such as diabetes has a responsibility to prevent themselves from driving impaired by it. If they can't control their blood sugar, then they shouldn't drive. If they fail to control it and hurt somebody, then it's their fault. Sorry if that sounds harsh; it's just how it must be.
The father undoubtedly murdered the driver (2nd degree, heat of the moment) and must be convicted, but I think he circumstances are such that he should be allowed to plea to something lower.
A father who has just witnessed the violent death of two of his children due to another man's negligence is, in effect, going to be temporarily insane for at least a few minutes. However, I don't think it would be wise to establish that as a precedent (or we'd have everybody engaging in revenge killing and claiming temporary insanity). Circumstances vary, and we can't be making up rules like, "well, if a parent kills somebody who has killed their child, but they did it within three minutes, then that's temporary insanty, but only if the child's death was violent and bloody, to mean blah blah blah...". The infinite possible circumstances that may arise is why we have courts with human juries and judges.
I think the father must be held accountable for the death, but it's fair to remove the element of intent, which would make it something like manslaughter or negligent homicide. Maybe that could even be the base charge, and he could allowed to plead it down from there to "gross negligence resulting in grave injury" or something. Furthermore, I think the circumstances seem to provide mitigation and extenuation that justify a minimal sentence.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16029
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | The father undoubtedly murdered the driver (2nd degree, heat of the moment) and must be convicted, but I think he circumstances are such that he should be allowed to plea to something lower. |
++ Whether or not I would convict would depend on the charge. I think I'd also prefer an at home / ankle bracelet sentence. If there is no meaningful threat to anyone else, propping up Big Prison isn't particularly value added.
The bigger dilemma IMO is when does it become an inappropriate response. BAC levels seem to be getting lower and lower, and I'm not convinced they are an accurate representation of intoxication / inability to safely operate a vehicle. What if it was someone texting? Or someone who just looked away, and didn't see them crossing at a crosswalk?
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | Drunk, distracted, uncoordinated, or just plain stupid, it makes no difference. The driver just killed two children. Somebody with a medical condition such as diabetes has a responsibility to prevent themselves from driving impaired by it. If they can't control their blood sugar, then they shouldn't drive. If they fail to control it and hurt somebody, then it's their fault. Sorry if that sounds harsh; it's just how it must be.
|
it doesn't sound harsh at all. I totally agree with you. I just don't think the punishment should be a bullet to the head without a trial.
| Quote: |
The father undoubtedly murdered the driver (2nd degree, heat of the moment) and must be convicted, but I think he circumstances are such that he should be allowed to plea to something lower. |
no disagreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
