Trial of Texas father raises legal, moral issues

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 21:38:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:29:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Actually... I think it kind of fits on either thread... considering the subject of this thread is a murder case.

i view this as a death penalty thread.  sorry if it seems out of place.

No worries from me. Like I said... to me it fits on either thread.

[EVT1]

Ok then- as an example people have been put on death row on less evidence that what this man was aquitted with.

Not withstanding certain posters I have a little faith in the jury system- they probably got it right- too much doubt.  Doesn't make a lot of sense how else it could happen but that is just circumstance.

My only beef- is that the drunk driver never had due process, a day in court, anything and was killed on the spot- and the giant assumption made is that he was drunk so therefore he was 100% to blame and deserved it.  Maybe is the best anyone can say with any certainty. And if maybe is good enough to kill people then I understand their support for the death penalty.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 9, 2014 21:47:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Ok then- as an example people have been put on death row on less evidence that what this man was aquitted with.

Not withstanding certain posters I have a little faith in the jury system- they probably got it right- too much doubt.  Doesn't make a lot of sense how else it could happen but that is just circumstance.

My only beef- is that the drunk driver never had due process, a day in court, anything and was killed on the spot- and the giant assumption made is that he was drunk so therefore he was 100% to blame and deserved it.  Maybe is the best anyone can say with any certainty. And if maybe is good enough to kill people then I understand their support for the death penalty.

i am against extrajudicial killing/beating/etc under all circumstances.  you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't.

[Deleted]

If he was drunk, he's guilty by default of ANY action his vehicle makes... even ones that are unavoidable to sober drivers. I have no problem with this perception.

(maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car)

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 21:54:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:47:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Ok then- as an example people have been put on death row on less evidence that what this man was aquitted with.

Not withstanding certain posters I have a little faith in the jury system- they probably got it right- too much doubt.  Doesn't make a lot of sense how else it could happen but that is just circumstance.

My only beef- is that the drunk driver never had due process, a day in court, anything and was killed on the spot- and the giant assumption made is that he was drunk so therefore he was 100% to blame and deserved it.  Maybe is the best anyone can say with any certainty. And if maybe is good enough to kill people then I understand their support for the death penalty.

i am against extrajudicial killing/beating/etc under all circumstances.  you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't.

I believe in that as well.

[EVT1]

Sept 9, 2014 21:55:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If he was drunk, he's guilty by default of ANY action his vehicle makes... even ones that are unavoidable to sober drivers. I have no problem with this perception.

(maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car)

And I posted another what if- sober driver with an unrestrained child is speeding and runs a red light, hitting a drunk driver- who is at fault when the kid hits the pavement and dies?

Not defending drunk driving- just pointing out that it in itself is not enough to determine fault.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 22:01:57 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:55:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If he was drunk, he's guilty by default of ANY action his vehicle makes... even ones that are unavoidable to sober drivers. I have no problem with this perception.

(maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car)

And I posted another what if- sober driver with an unrestrained child is speeding and runs a red light, hitting a drunk driver- who is at fault when the kid hits the pavement and dies?

Not defending drunk driving- just pointing out that it in itself is not enough to determine fault.

Re-read what I posted: guilty by default of any action his vehicle makes

The bolded is the important part when looking at your "what if" scenario.

[EVT1]

Sept 9, 2014 22:06:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 9, 2014 22:01:57 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

And I posted another what if- sober driver with an unrestrained child is speeding and runs a red light, hitting a drunk driver- who is at fault when the kid hits the pavement and dies?

Not defending drunk driving- just pointing out that it in itself is not enough to determine fault.

Re-read what I posted: guilty by default of any action his vehicle makes

The bolded is the important part when looking at your "what if" scenario.

So what if a drunk driver runs out of gas in the middle of the road and has his kids push, getting nailed by a sober driver- who is at fault then?  His vehicle takes the action of being an obstacle in the roadway, no? 

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 22:12:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 9, 2014 22:06:24 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Re-read what I posted: guilty by default of any action his vehicle makes

The bolded is the important part when looking at your "what if" scenario.

So what if a drunk driver runs out of gas in the middle of the road and has his kids push, getting nailed by a sober driver- who is at fault then?  His vehicle takes the action of being an obstacle in the roadway, no? 

You can "what if" all you like. My position will never change. The drunk is 100% at fault of any action the vehicle under his/her control takes.

In this latest "what if" of yours, his vehicle makes the "action" of being an obstacle that should not have been there. If the obstacle causes a crash, then he's at fault for putting that obstacle there. 

How hard is "of any action his vehicle makes" to understand?

ETA: I'd also hold him responsible for making the drunk decision to have the kids push.


Maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel.

[EVT1]

Take the dead children out of the equation because it is clouding the issue- if I were to leave my vehicle in the road- because I was drunk or maybe not and some car hit it later- my ass would be getting a ticket.  Try parking your car on the interstate.

All we know is rural road- which can range from 30-55MPH, usually two lanes, and according to the story had no street lights.  I'll repeat my stance- if anyone thinks the dad shares no blame in this they are clueless.

Know how many police officers and other people get killed on the shoulder of a highway?  A lot- and the majority are killed by sober drivers- so to me it is incredibly irresponsible to put children in a situation I would not put myself in- throw the hazards on and get the hell away from it.  The only way I would push anything is if it was a long flat road, good visibility, and even then I would push it to the shoulder and leave it.  Common damn sense.

[EVT1]

Sept 9, 2014 22:20:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 9, 2014 22:12:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So what if a drunk driver runs out of gas in the middle of the road and has his kids push, getting nailed by a sober driver- who is at fault then?  His vehicle takes the action of being an obstacle in the roadway, no? 

You can "what if" all you like. My position will never change. The drunk is 100% at fault of any action the vehicle under his/her control takes.

In this latest "what if" of yours, his vehicle makes the "action" of being an obstacle that should not have been there. If the obstacle causes a crash, then he's at fault for putting that obstacle there. 

How hard is "of any action his vehicle makes" to understand?

ETA: I'd also hold him responsible for making the drunk decision to have the kids push.


Maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel.

OK- so in the other scenario when the DUI driver was on a green light in their proper lane and gets T-boned they are at fault or no?

[EVT1]

I'll let you in on a case that happened a long time ago- where people were killed and there were so many fingers pointing blame- and not even on a drunk driver- an underage drinker that had a couple of beers.

What happened is that the driver was making a left turn and got hit- got the ticket for failure to yield and was initially charged with vehicular manslaughter, alcohol, etc.  Of course what came out later during the investigation is that he was hit by one of two cars drag racing- 30+ over the speed limit.  But at first they were ready to throw him in jail.

So- I am always going to be on the side of people that do not get a fair shot. 

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 22:27:12 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 9, 2014 22:20:16 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

You can "what if" all you like. My position will never change. The drunk is 100% at fault of any action the vehicle under his/her control takes.

In this latest "what if" of yours, his vehicle makes the "action" of being an obstacle that should not have been there. If the obstacle causes a crash, then he's at fault for putting that obstacle there. 

How hard is "of any action his vehicle makes" to understand?

ETA: I'd also hold him responsible for making the drunk decision to have the kids push.


Maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel.

OK- so in the other scenario when the DUI driver was on a green light in their proper lane and gets T-boned they are at fault or no?

In that stupid (and SERIOUSLY unlikely) scenario the driver of the OTHER car is at fault for the T-Bone, and the drunk is at fault for drunk driving (and thus at fault for being in the intersection in the first place to BE hit).

[fairlycrazy23]

Sept 9, 2014 21:55:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If he was drunk, he's guilty by default of ANY action his vehicle makes... even ones that are unavoidable to sober drivers. I have no problem with this perception.

(maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car)

That is too general of a statement; if a vehicle 'does something' that caused harm to another individual, but that 'does something' was unavoidable (to even sober drivers), then guilt should not be assigned to the driver.

[EVT1]

Stupid and unlikely?  Accidents happen all the time where the driver not at fault for the collision gets arrested for DUI and the other driver gets the ticket.  The majority of accidents are not caused by drunk drivers- they are just more likely to cause one and should not drive.  But if they do they are only guilty of driving drunk and are not presumed the cause of a crash. 

 

  

 

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 12:49:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Stupid and unlikely?  Accidents happen all the time where the driver not at fault for the collision gets arrested for DUI and the other driver gets the ticket.  The majority of accidents are not caused by drunk drivers- they are just more likely to cause one and should not drive.  But if they do they are only guilty of driving drunk and are not presumed the cause of a crash.  

Please point out ANYWHERE where I ever said otherwise. Thanks.

They are only guilty of their car's involvement in the crash. See your T-Bone example above. the guy that ran the red light (or however he transgressed the traffic laws) is at fault for the T-Bone. The drunk is at fault for having his vehicle there with him driving (drunk).



Again: Maybe drunk people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

[Shooby]

Did anyone see this on Dr Phil today? I am not convinced that he could have shot him.

[Shooby]

Sept 9, 2014 22:24:19 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Take the dead children out of the equation because it is clouding the issue- if I were to leave my vehicle in the road- because I was drunk or maybe not and some car hit it later- my ass would be getting a ticket.  Try parking your car on the interstate.

All we know is rural road- which can range from 30-55MPH, usually two lanes, and according to the story had no street lights.  I'll repeat my stance- if anyone thinks the dad shares no blame in this they are clueless.

Know how many police officers and other people get killed on the shoulder of a highway?  A lot- and the majority are killed by sober drivers- so to me it is incredibly irresponsible to put children in a situation I would not put myself in- throw the hazards on and get the hell away from it.  The only way I would push anything is if it was a long flat road, good visibility, and even then I would push it to the shoulder and leave it.  Common damn sense.

Yeah. Dead children do tend to " cloud the equation". Wow.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

That's not what he was saying at all. The car had broken down 50 yards from his residence - at night.

He could have (and should have) left it parked at the side of the road and he and his sons ALL walked the very short distance home.

The car could have been retrieved the next morning during daylight, or towed to the residence.

He was able to get to the house and return to the scene with a weapon in a matter of minutes after his kids were hit - the worst that would have happened if he'd simply done what I stated above, is that someone would have hit his parked car - and not the boys who were attempting to push it.

[Shooby]

Do u follow me from thread to thread or what?

[Shooby]

Shooby groupie! Lol.

[zibazinski]

Being stalked by certain posters? Welcome to my world.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

No, I clicked on "New Topics" and was taking part in the discussion , since I'd visited and commented in this thread previously.




.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 19:09:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Being stalked by certain posters? Welcome to my world.

i don't stalk you, zib.  i just have trouble understanding you.

i do stalk shooby, however. 

[zibazinski]

DJ!! You are bad, bad, bad. Fortunately today my sense of humor is back after getting, finally, some sleep, and can handle you and your cohorts again!

[Green Eyed Lady]

All the "what ifs" or "should haves" don't matter.  The kids were there.  He was drunk.  The kids are dead.  It was his fault.  I don't know how anyone could even think of excusing him for this or thinking of sharing this blame.  I don't think the dad made the smartest decision either.  I probably wouldn't have done it, but that doesn't make him at fault anymore than a woman is at fault for getting raped because she chose to walk to her car in a dark parking lot.  Not the smartest decision, but it doesn't make her even one iota culpable for someone else's illegal actions.

I stand by my assertion that if the guy hadn't been wasted, he might have been able to see and avoid hitting these kids.  That's why driving while intoxicated is against the law.  It slows down your reactions.  It makes you unable to quickly made the decisions a sober person can make.  Had he been sober, perhaps he could have avoided this completely.  We'll never know for sure and I'm not saying it's a certainty but, again, there is a reason driving drunk is against the law and this is why.

All that being said, he didn't deserve to be tried, convincted and executed right there on the road. 

[Shooby]

There is really no evidence that the Dad did it. Nobody saw him shoot him. He had no gun powder residue on him. Where is the gun? There was a car that had been following the drunk driver. IT pulled up right after the accident. And, there are cameras when police arrived and the dad was on the ground doing CPR. If he did shoot him, based on the timelines that were recreated on DR. Phil he literally would only have had like a min and 30 sec to run home, shoot him, wash the residue off his hands and get rid of the weapon.

[EVT1]

I can't understand it either- angry or not why would a father leave his kids lying in the street to go get a gun- doesn't make sense.  It would make a hell of a lot more sense if had the gun on him though- have no idea why that was not a theory.

[zibazinski]

Well, it stands to reason then that he probably didnt do it, which is what the decision was. He certainly had motive enough but without any proof, it is what it is. You can't just wash off gunpowder residue. I can't smell the smell when we go shooting but DF can and we have been told not to shoot for a few days before flying.