- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Father (Not Guilty) of killing drunk driver who killed his sons.Update
Posted on 8/18/14 at 9:55 pm to Tigerlaff
Posted on 8/18/14 at 9:55 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Anybody think he should be convicted?
Yes. If it's proven he shot the driver, it's murder, pure and simple.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 9:57 pm
1
Posted on 8/18/14 at 9:55 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Something that is entirely preventable based on another person's choices and actions is not an accident. At least not an excusable one.
It's still an accident. If I get into a wreck after 3 beers, are you implying that I knowingly set out to kill people?
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:11 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
It's still an accident. If I get into a wreck after 3 beers, are you implying that I knowingly set out to kill people?
It's not an accident... there are plenty of laws and cases saying so... No you may not have intended to kill someone but that doesn't make them less dead. They would be dead by your inability to control the 6000 pound missile you chose to operate.
This is not a new fricking concept... Why are so many arguing something with so much perecident?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:19 pm to LT
You are the one struggling with the concept of what an accident is. And stop with the "perecident" counselor.
Just because it's an accident doesn't mean civil or criminal liability don't attach.
Just because it's an accident doesn't mean civil or criminal liability don't attach.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:21 pm to LT
quote:
This is not a new fricking concept... Why are so many arguing something with so much perecident?
Why are you and other ignoring the other party's culpability in this horrible accident turned murder scene. The arguement could be made that the parents are guilty of some kind of child endangerment by putting them on that road in the middle of the night.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:33 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
You are the one struggling with the concept of what an accident is. And stop with the "perecident" counselor. Just because it's an accident doesn't mean civil or criminal liability don't attach.
Yeah I fat fingered. You got me.
So we are delving down into semantics on this. A drunk piece of shite accidentally can't control his car and kills someone. That's not an accident. That's not a whoopsie. That's someone intentionally putting the lives of everyone in their vicinity at risk.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:35 pm to LT
Because it's still an accident. Unless of course I drunkenly decide to run someone over. I don't really care what the law says. Laws aren't perfect.
ETA: This is not me saying there should be no consequences for it.
ETA: This is not me saying there should be no consequences for it.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:38 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Why are you and other ignoring the other party's culpability in this horrible accident turned murder scene. The arguement could be made that the parents are guilty of some kind of child endangerment by putting them on that road in the middle of the night.
I was referring in general to drunk drivers and culpability, not to this story.
In this story the father may have made a stupid decision, but I truly don't think he is guilty of endangerment.
Also in this story, I didn't see any mention of proof that he is guilty. There's no weapon, no witness, no evidence he fired a weapon....
I can't see this going before a jury, much less him being convicted... Unless they are holding something back.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:39 pm to LT
quote:
A drunk piece of shite
Here it is, The people on this board can't get past this part. They refuse to see that the man was directly responsible for his own kids deaths by putting them into the situation to begin with and they refuse to understand that it could have happened to a sober person just as easily.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:41 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Because it's still an accident. Unless of course I drunkenly decide to run someone over. I don't really care what the law says. Laws aren't perfect.
Oh my word. Ok in your head it's all fine and that's all that matters.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:42 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Anybody think he should be convicted?
If he shot the guy, then absolutely.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:45 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Here it is, The people on this board can't get past this part. They refuse to see that the man was directly responsible for his own kids deaths by putting them into the situation to begin with and they refuse to understand that it could have happened to a sober person just as easily.
No not just as easily. Because of the reaction times of the sober person would be much greater than someone under the influence. The odds of the wreck happening would have been lower.
I told you earlier that was a response to general discussion of drunk driving.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:52 pm to LT
Man we have some crazy people in this thread. So do y'all think 80% of LSUs campus deserves to be murdered? Cause that is probably around the percentage that has driven legally drunk. And if y'all are true to your morals driving drunk is the sin. The fact of whether or not you hit someone should not effect your opinion, because that is being results oriented.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:54 pm to lsupride87
Also it has been proven texting while driving is more dangerous then drunk driving. As well as eating fast food. So if your fat fingers were gripped around a whopper, and you accidentally, yes accidentally cause that is what it is, hit and killed somebody do you need to be murdered too?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:55 pm to LT
quote:
No not just as easily.
Could have just as easily been you dude, you just don't want to see it. The guy was in the wrong for putting his family out there like that and that is all there is to it. It was the middle of the night on an unlit,dark,no street lights, probably at least 6o to 65 miles per hour speed limit. If I am not mistaken a law enforcement person familiar with the accident said there was no way he could've known the guy had been drinking prior to the shooting. If that is even remotely true then it sheds a whole new light on things.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:55 pm to UpToPar
quote:
While no one intends to kill someone while driving with intoxicated, they make a conscious decision to partake in an action that they know could have grave consequences. Obviously no one intends to go to the casino and lose money, but most go with the knowledge that their decision to go to the casino could result in them losing money. I wouldn't say the a person who went to the casino lost their money accidentally.
This is such a hollow analogy.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:56 pm to Henry Jones Jr
He should be convicted.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 10:59 pm to lsupride87
I would like to see those studies.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 11:08 pm to boom roasted
quote:Texting 6 times more dangerous
I would like to see those studies.
And eating is even more dangerous then texting
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 8/18/14 at 11:10 pm to lsupride87
So just remember, when that high school girl was texting and driving and she accidentally hits and kills someone, she deserves to be murdered
Page 12 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News