Trial of Texas father raises legal, moral issues

[Tennesseer]

Aug 30, 2014 19:28:22 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't know about the rich kid. Produce a link and I will be happy to read and comment on it.

Judge orders Texas teen Ethan Couch to rehab for driving drunk, killing 4

[Shooby]

And, if one of the family members had a gun and blew him away, then I would say that is the same situation and would support the same exact outcome.

[EVT1]

Aug 30, 2014 19:44:09 GMT -5 Shooby said:

And, if one of the family members had a gun and blew him away, then I would say that is the same situation and would support the same exact outcome.

As I said you are a predjudiced person that could give a shit about the facts- officer Wilson needs you

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 30, 2014 14:46:24 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Then if there's no proof and no evidence, why are they trying to prosecute him? Because he's the most likely to have done it? What a waste.

  

Serious answer though, is the law.  Someone has to go down when someone is shot- the books have to balance.  One guy shot dead, one guy in jail.  And possession is 9/10ths of the law.  Go looking for someone, or charge the guy they've got who had the motive and the opportunity-- worry about the means later.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 30, 2014 20:47:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 30, 2014 19:44:09 GMT -5 Shooby said:

And, if one of the family members had a gun and blew him away, then I would say that is the same situation and would support the same exact outcome.

As I said you are a predjudiced person that could give a shit about the facts- officer Wilson needs you

Talk about a prejudiced person.  You don't know anything about Officer Wilson that points to his guilt-- the only difference between you and the defendant in this case is that you are hiding behind the judicial system and proposing it be used not as a fair an impartial way of sorting out the facts, but as a vigilante mob's weapon.  

And Shooby- really? We have to not go this direction.  Unless you're defending life, you can't take a life.  You can, but then you have to pay for it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And if this isn't a case for a AAA membership and a mobile phone- I don't know what is.  I agree- kids in the roadway was extremely poor judgment.  Not blaming the victim, but 100% of people that aren't in the road don't get run over in the road.

[Shooby]

As I said you are a predjudiced person that could give a shit about the facts- officer Wilson needs you .

Actually it is YOU are the prejudiced person. You only see color. You seem to assume that because the cop is white and the victim was black, that those are the ONLY facts that matter. You seem to ignore that Brown acted the thug 5 min earlier shoving around another NON black. And, BRown had a rap sheet of juvenile problems. But, no matter. He PUNCHED the cop in the face. So, keep trying to SPIN facts to be something they are not. He should have shut his big mouth up, kept his hands to himself and got on the sidewalk and went on his way. He CHOOSE to turn this into a violent situation by HIS actions. He was no "gentle giant" but a THUG who apparently like to throw his weight around as he did in the convenience store 5 min earlier. Even his friend said he GRABBED for the officer's gun. Doing that and punching the officer in the face, he then set this in motion HIMSELF and has only HIMSELF to blame.
But, facts be damned. Continue YOUR racism by trying to paint every white cop as a racist who are doing their duty. Oh, and be sure to ignore black on white crime as well and pretend that doesn't count. Uh huh.

[mmhmm]

The facts are, EVT1 and Shooby, neither of you has any idea what the facts are in this case. All either of you knows is what you've read or seen on TV. Additionally, neither of you knows if the other is actually prejudiced, or not. Cut it out with the accusations. Discuss the thread subject, not each other.

mmhmm, Administrator

[Shooby]

Fine. Then don't label ME and I won't label YOU.

[mmhmm]

Aug 31, 2014 11:49:15 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Fine. Then don't label ME and I won't label YOU.

Excuse me?  Was that meant for me, Shooby?  I don't believe I've labeled you.

[Shooby]

No, it was meant that EVT typed this : "As I said you are a predjudiced person that could give a shit about the facts- officer Wilson needs you ." to which I responded. So, if people are going to get away with saying that to ME than I am going to respond to the YOU (them) who made the statement. Not meaning you mmhmm.

[mmhmm]

Okay, Shooby, but I had spoken to the issue and included both of you. EVT had not posted again since you responded to his post the first time, so a response had already been made. You both need to stop discussing each other and get back to the topic. That's exactly what I said.

[Shooby]

I made ONE comment. So, don't paint me with that brush. So, yes, I will get back to the topic.

[EVT1]

So and back to that topic- the trial was about whether or not a man committed murder- not whether or not the victim was responsible for the crash.

What that means to me is you cannot support a not guilty verdict based on anything other than the facts- mainly being no gun, etc.

So- anyone on the jury that let him go because of the accident is plain wrong and failed their duty.   There is nothing out there stating that intoxication was the cause of this accident- it is just an assumption.  It is certainly possible that the dad was the cause of this accident.  More likely they are both at fault- and maybe if there are civil suits down the road a jury will apportion that fault.

What you cannot argue is than in the space of six minutes or whatever it was, the dad had time to determine the cause of the crash, determine that the driver was over the limit, sentence the man to death, retrieve a gun and execute him.  That's insane.  

[zibazinski]

No gun, no residue, no case.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 31, 2014 14:00:35 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So and back to that topic- the trial was about whether or not a man committed murder- not whether or not the victim was responsible for the crash.

What that means to me is you cannot support a not guilty verdict based on anything other than the facts- mainly being no gun, etc.

So- anyone on the jury that let him go because of the accident is plain wrong and failed their duty.   There is nothing out there stating that intoxication was the cause of this accident- it is just an assumption.  It is certainly possible that the dad was the cause of this accident.  More likely they are both at fault- and maybe if there are civil suits down the road a jury will apportion that fault.

What you cannot argue is than in the space of six minutes or whatever it was, the dad had time to determine the cause of the crash, determine that the driver was over the limit, sentence the man to death, retrieve a gun and execute him.  That's insane.  

Nobody has to "support a not-guilty verdict.  It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt - not up to the defense to prove innocence.  It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  If they do not do that, the jury has no other option than to find the defendant not-guilty.  It doesn't matter whether or not he had the time do this.  What matters is did the prosecution prove he did.  If they didn't, the jury did EXACTLY what they were charged with doing.  They weren't wrong and they didn't fail their duty.  If guilt wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they did exactly as they were charged to do.

It's very possible people on the jury are sick about their decision.  It's very possible each and every one of them had a feeling the guy did it.  That's not good enough. 

[EVT1]

There were comments to the idea that people that thought he was guilty might let him go anyway because of the circumstances- that would be the failure I am referring to.

[zibazinski]

Oh, well.  

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 31, 2014 14:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

There were comments to the idea that people that thought he was guilty might let him go anyway because of the circumstances- that would be the failure I am referring to.

They very well could have "thought he was guilty" but the guy deserved it.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is if the prosecution proved it.  What I'm saying is this is no failure on the part of the jury.  They obviously took their job very seriously.  What they "thought" has no bearing.  What was proven does.

Now I'm not saying that some people don't vote with their emotions.  It happens all the time.  THAT is when there is a failure.

[TheHaitian]

Aug 31, 2014 14:15:56 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Oh, well.  

X 2

I never claimed to be perfect, I am human after all!

[EVT1]

Aug 31, 2014 14:19:38 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 31, 2014 14:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

There were comments to the idea that people that thought he was guilty might let him go anyway because of the circumstances- that would be the failure I am referring to.

They very well could have "thought he was guilty" but the guy deserved it.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is if the prosecution proved it.  What I'm saying is this is no failure on the part of the jury.  They obviously took their job very seriously.  What they "thought" has no bearing.  What was proven does.

Now I'm not saying that some people don't vote with their emotions.  It happens all the time.  THAT is when there is a failure.

That's all I was saying in the first place- that I hope they made their decision based on the evidence. 

There is zero excuse for excusing a murder if it had been proven to be the case- which is what I take issue with.

Plus I think the dad is at the least partially to blame for putting his kids in danger so he has no moral high ground- and the idea that some people see him as just a noble parent and would understand him taking swift vengeance is laughable.

 

[Green Eyed Lady]

I hope so, too, EVT.  Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but I really don't think there are that many people who would want to see someone guilty of murder go free.  I can absolutely see people thinking a lesser penalty would be appropriate, if it was proven there were extenuating circumstances. 

I don't agree about the dad being partially to blame for the accident.  Maybe it wasn't the best decision, but I highly doubt he even thought about some drunk coming along and smashing his children.  I don't know how it is where you live, but people push disabled automobiles around here all the time.  Especially in the winter.  It's not a bit unusual for people to hop out of their cars to help push out a car that is stuck in the snow.  That wouldn't make them partially to blame if a drunk came along and hit them. 

I have no tolerance for people who drive under the influence, but that doesn't mean I think it's right to try, convict and execute them either.  Its my guess most people probably feel that way.  Most people can understand wanting to, but I don't think they'd give him a pass - not the majority of people anyway.

[mmhmm]

Aug 31, 2014 12:19:16 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I made ONE comment. So, don't paint me with that brush. So, yes, I will get back to the topic.

You made several comments, Shooby, not one. Nobody's painting you with any brush. The brush in question is in your own hand.

[Tennesseer]

Interesting.

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality

[Green Eyed Lady]

The jury doesn't always have the final word either.  I'm pretty sure a judge can overturn a guilty verdict.  I don't think he/she can overturn a not-guilty verdict, tho.  I'd have to read up on that.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 31, 2014 22:42:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Interesting.

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality

i served on a jury that sat on a drug case.
everyone here knows my feelings about drug laws.
however, i felt it was not my responsibility to challenge them, as a juror.
it was my responsibility to weigh the evidence against the law.
i discharged that duty.

did i have mixed feelings about it?  yes.
was i looking for every possible LEGAL way to acquit?  yes.
did i allow those feelings to inform my final judgement?  no.

[Deleted]

Aug 31, 2014 22:42:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Interesting.

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality

I actually agree with the premise of "Jury Nullification" in cases where it's a "victimless crime" (such as in the story at the link). Some laws shouldn't exist.

[EVT1]

Aug 31, 2014 22:11:03 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

 

I don't agree about the dad being partially to blame for the accident.  Maybe it wasn't the best decision, but I highly doubt he even thought about some drunk coming along and smashing his children.  I don't know how it is where you live, but people push disabled automobiles around here all the time.  Especially in the winter.  It's not a bit unusual for people to hop out of their cars to help push out a car that is stuck in the snow.  That wouldn't make them partially to blame if a drunk came along and hit them. 

It doesn't matter where I live- it matters what kind of street it was and the conditions.  A two lane rural road at night- no freaking way- it would be pulled over as far as it could and we would be walking- period.  I would be concerned about ANY driver smashing into my kids- and as far as we know alcohol was not nec. the cause of this- that's an assumption.  And you are wrong about partial blame- all you do is replace drunk driver with sober and alert driver and rerun the exact same crash- who is at fault then?  The people in the road or the driver?

 

[TheHaitian]

Sept 1, 2014 1:44:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 31, 2014 22:11:03 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

 

I don't agree about the dad being partially to blame for the accident.  Maybe it wasn't the best decision, but I highly doubt he even thought about some drunk coming along and smashing his children.  I don't know how it is where you live, but people push disabled automobiles around here all the time.  Especially in the winter.  It's not a bit unusual for people to hop out of their cars to help push out a car that is stuck in the snow.  That wouldn't make them partially to blame if a drunk came along and hit them. 

It doesn't matter where I live- it matters what kind of street it was and the conditions.  A two lane rural road at night- no freaking way- it would be pulled over as far as it could and we would be walking- period.  I would be concerned about ANY driver smashing into my kids- and as far as we know alcohol was not nec. the cause of this- that's an assumption.  And you are wrong about partial blame- all you do is replace drunk driver with sober and alert driver and rerun the exact same crash- who is at fault then?  The people in the road or the driver?

 

Unfortunately we don't get to replace drunk with sober. He was drunk and the ME report states that he was DRUNK.

Stop playing what if's; he was drunk driving and killed two kids in the process. This was not a rehearsal where you get to change the end with different scenarios; it was the real thing.

You don't get to lessen his guilt in the accident by saying: oops, it could have been something else that caused the accident. He was driving and in control of that car that killed the two kids.

Who killed him? I don't know... But not enough proof to indict the father. Too bad, don't cry me a river.

And I will freely admit I am bias because a drunk driver ran over my cousin and left him to die in the streets like an animal. But hey I guess it was his fault for crossing the street at 2 AM, guilt lies with him not the drunk driver. Let's say that to his 3 children: "your daddy shouldn't have been coming from his second job at 2 AM trying to support you guys. He should have been safely in bed leaving the streets free and clear for the drunk drivers. He is at fault!"

[zibazinski]

I think drunk drivers are guilty of premeditated murder. The fact that they use their car instead of another weapon doesn't mean squat to me.