Main > The Round Table

Justifiable homicide?

<< < (2/6) > >>

Sir James A:
The guy who was driving drunk was under age. I have zero tolerance or compassion for that. My cousin was drunk, underage, and flipped and totalled his SUV. Didn't shed a tear or think anything other than "f'ing idiot, welcome to karma". And the father killed the guy before cops even arrived on the scene - that should be a stretch to say "premeditated". It's not as if he dug around to find out his address, staked out his house and waited for him to leave then chased him into a guardrail. I'd question that, but in the heat of the moment, when your own child dies right next to you - as far as I'm concerned, unleash hell on the killer. Single gunshot to the head, or 50 stab wounds, given the circumstances, I wouldn't blink an eye at either.

Funny thing about juries, is they can agree that he's not guilty, and let him walk away. I can almost guarantee anybody sitting on that jury with children would have to be mentally unstable to say that they would not do something similar to someone who just killed their child (or children) right in front of them. The article says the father and his sons were pushing the truck ... picture yourself pushing a vehicle with your child, when somebody plows into them and kills them right next to you. And the other goes to the hospital and dies.

That kind of traumatic experience will be with the father until the day he dies.

Lord Dane:
Pre-meditation (in legalize) means planned or intended mind-set to kill the person; this one based on an impulsive & spontaneous reaction. It fits more a 'manslaughter' charge category. But like I said, I feel 'no' remorse for the drunk A**HOLE as he got what he deserves. However, the father must still be charged even though his loss is regrettable and actions understandable. It still does not qualify for 'justifiable' homicide or 'self-defense'. Temporary insanity defense is the way I see that one going. Jury will be very sympathetic.

Sir Edward:

Yeah, in the eyes of the law, no one is allowed to be an executioner after the fact. If he had shot the guy to prevent him from killing his sons, it would be justifiable homicide. As much as we might think it's justifiable, legally it is not, because the driver is entitled to due process. Otherwise we have "mob justice".

Now, had he gotten out of the car, and threatened to kill the survivors, then it becomes an act of defense to kill the guy.

Now having said all of that, there's something called "jury nullification". The jury can still let him go based on the circumstances.

Sir William:
I get the father's grief, but it might not be enough to let him walk.  Juries are funky- they don't always make the 'right' decision.  But what's right?

Let me present another view; your son, a good kid, makes good grades, but has a substance abuse problem you're unaware of- despite him having been caught out there before.  But its your kid, you love him, right?

Now, he's gone and done something really, really stupid that ended up killing someone else; the father of that someone else just murdered your son - vengeance for the death of his own. 

By your own admission, at least for some of you on here, you would have killed the offendor yourselves, for revenge.  I get that feeling, I do.  Which would also mean that you should understand if the father of the drunk driver sought this man out and killed him- for having prematurely ended his son's life.  Vengeance knows no reason, it has no faculties with which to make informed decisions- it is emotionally driven; as such most people understand it viscerally, even though their minds might tell them it is wrong, in the heat of the moment you have a split second when a choice is made; some would have you believe that they 'had no choice' or 'it just happened'- all this is bullshit.  The choice was made in the heat of the moment; sad thing is, he could kill everyone else on the face of the planet and it still wouldn't bring his sons back to life, and I doubt it'd make him feel any better for having done so.  Not to mention, what if the drunk driver's parents feel the need for retribution?  As a parent, I can tell you- I get where this guy came from, but the same might be said for the other father.  If I was that other father, I couldn't promise you that I wouldn't return the favor- despite what my kid might've done, you don't have the right to take their life.  If you take it upon yourself to make that decision, you could also open yourself to action in kind- and you'd have to accept it seeing as you took the first step down this road.

I have to say some of these responses are a bit disappointing- I expect knee jerk reactions from the rabble, but you fellows are smarter than that.  Sir Brian, what if it were your son or daughter who got drunk at a party and had an accident like this one?  Would you really stand by after someone killed your daughter- spur of the moment, righteous anger, deserved vengeance...would that truly apply?

Revenge is never lawfully justified- and it serves no purpose but to cause more heartache; the parents of the drunk driver lost their son who I assume they loved...and the father of those kids, who has already lost so much may now also lose his freedom...who wins, eh?  Who benefits from all of this?

Lord Dane:
Which is why I support justice through the law. I won't tolerate eye for eye justice by vigilante acts or revenge killings. I will be sensibility in these matters bc that is why I do this for a living. I do know better. Wisdom comes from acting prudently. You can not take back actions with permanent consequences and think I'm sorry is going to cut it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page