- 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 8:39 pm to UpToPar
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:39 pm to UpToPar
I don't think anyone is arguing the actual charge.
The argument are the ones saying driving drunk is basically parallel with randomly shooting someone on purpose. They don't see that one murder is an accident and the other is on purpose.
At least I was debating about the actual charge. Im fine with being charged with murder.
The argument are the ones saying driving drunk is basically parallel with randomly shooting someone on purpose. They don't see that one murder is an accident and the other is on purpose.
At least I was debating about the actual charge. Im fine with being charged with murder.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:40 pm to TH03
quote:
driving drunk doesn't mean you intend to kill someone any more than driving tired or texting while driving does.
Dude you should be the lawyer for every drunk driver that kills someone. All you have to do is say he/she never intended to kill anybody, or he/she didn't do it purpose. Then the judge would have no chance but to say not guilty and let your client go home free just because you said that the driver didn't mean to. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:41 pm to LT
quote:
through negligence.
you said it yourself. negligence is not the same thing as intent.
acting in an unsafe manner which results in death is not the same as intentionally killing someone.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:42 pm to lsusportsman2
yea, because saying it wasn't intentional means I'm saying he was completely innocent.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:42 pm to TH03
quote:
yea, but you intended to cause bodily harm which resulted in death. there's a connection.
Intent to cause bodily harm is a red herring here. It's irrelevant. My point is that the actual intent to kill someone is not always necessary. If I shoot over your head with the intent to only scare you, but accidentally hit you, have I committed murder?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:42 pm to Tigerlaff
I sympathize with the father and I would be this close to doing the same thing as well. The moral and good hearted side says I wouldn't indict him. The rational and logical side says he needs to be arrested and convicted. Just a shitty situation all around.
I wouldn't be surprised if jury nullification is the result in this case or the jury simply forgoes indictment.
I wouldn't be surprised if jury nullification is the result in this case or the jury simply forgoes indictment.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:42 pm to UpToPar
quote:
If I drive by someone's house and open fire into their house because I don't like them, and I kill a little girl sleeping in the front bedroom, did I have intent to kill that girl? Am I a murdered?
You have to actively go to that house, aim the gun, and pull the trigger over and over into a house where you know people are. You did all that on purpose.
Trying to get home you have no intent on hurting/threatening/sending a message to anyone but you over correct in a turn or get caught playing on the radio and go into wrong lane. All you were trying to do was get home and you cost lives.
The other you had to drive there and pull a trigger and aim and did that on purpose while other was complete accident.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:43 pm to LT
Is everyone glossing over the part that it was likely the father didn't know the driver was drunk?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:43 pm to REG861
quote:I don't know what is was thinking. I forgot the typical OT reaction.
Careful, there are a lot of graduates from the OT school of law here.
1. Skim article
2. Google key words and phrases (optional)
3. Latch onto a few key words and phrases
4. Become expert with incontrovertible opinion
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:43 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The moral and good hearted side says I wouldn't indict him. The rational and logical side says he needs to be arrested and convicted.
+1
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:44 pm to lsusportsman2
quote:
Dude you should be the lawyer for every drunk driver that kills someone. All you have to do is say he/she never intended to kill anybody, or he/she didn't do it purpose. Then the judge would have no chance but to say not guilty and let your client go home free just because you said that the driver didn't mean to. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Of course you ignore that post where I said that i'm fine with them being charged with murderer and going to prison.
Its you that think its the same as shooting someone on purpose that is kind of frightening lack of being able to differentiate intent.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:44 pm to fightingtiger2335
quote:
The argument are the ones saying driving drunk is basically parallel with randomly shooting someone on purpose. They don't see that one murder is an accident and the other is on purpose.
If that's the argument, then one does not equal the other. Both may be murder, but one is clearly intentional. I was just saying that some people may believe that killing someone while driving drunk is not purely accidental.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:45 pm to TH03
quote:No shite. I was quoting you using the phrase "first degree murder."
keep reading. Texas doesn't have first degree murder.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:46 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The rational and logical side says he needs to be arrested and convicted. Just a shitty situation all arou
Curious.... Did you read the article? Could you convict with the evidence they have? No witness, no weapon, no powder residue, nothing...
I find it more believable that his wife ran out there and shot the guy.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:46 pm to boom roasted
quote:
quote:
keep reading. Texas doesn't have first degree murder.
No shite. I was quoting you using the phrase "first degree murder."
oh he backtracked and had some bs excuse for it
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:47 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I was just saying that some people may believe that killing someone while driving drunk is not purely accidental.
I just don't know anyone who purposefully wants to end their night with a murder wrap. It would actually seem like a worst nightmare. IT doesn't change the fact that he did murder someone but to think he did it on purpose is just people thinking if they see a difference they are somehow being softer on drinking and driving which isn't the case being made.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:48 pm to EarthwormJim
Yes. And it pisses me off
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:49 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:Reads like manslaughter to me.
Idk the facts but I heard about this last year and was under the impression he left the scene and went inside to get his gun. Can't that be 1st degree murder?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:49 pm to boom roasted
yea, honestly that was before I realized this all happened in the same night. I was arguing the general situation
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:49 pm to TH03
Like I said, whether it's intentional or not is completely irrelevant. If you drive drunk and kill someone behind the wheel, you need to suffer the consequences. End of story.
Popular
Back to top


1





