Author Topic: A justifiable murder?  (Read 12878 times)

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #60 on: February 17, 2013, 01:13:39 PM »
55mp/h sounds unnaturally slow  :| Even 65 actually sounds pretty slow.

That puts things in an interesting new perspective. Dutch traffic law allows 80mph on highways. Which is fast, and which people are still pushing of course, but it's possible to do so more or less safely. As long as the road quality is high enough, anyway. We have an advantage there considering the short distances.

The biggest danger (as far as I know) is the difference in speed between drivers though, which is why both people going over the limit and people sticking under the limit should be fined for it.

Offline surly74

Re:
« Reply #61 on: February 19, 2013, 11:12:18 AM »
Quote from: "Jmpty"
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0074.htm

Here are some different statistics.

they are different. It's also interesting that while fatalities go up from the initial limits they then decrease the higher they go.
God bless those Pagans
--
Homer Simpson

Offline The Skeletal Atheist

(No subject)
« Reply #62 on: February 19, 2013, 05:48:19 PM »
I have absolutely zero sympathy for the drunk driver who was shot in the head, I only wish he would've made contact with a tree and killed himself instead of someone else.

That being said, this is a homicide and it should be treated as such. Morally justifiable? That's up for debate, though I can see why the father would react in such a way. Legally justifiable? No. Here's hoping that the court sees the fact that he just watched his children get killed as a mitigating factor and reduce whatever sentence they decide to lay down on him.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

(No subject)
« Reply #63 on: February 19, 2013, 10:41:22 PM »
The family of the two boys should have counseling provided and the county's deepest apologies for not doing enough to keep idiots from driving drunk. The county should purchase a firearm to replace the one the father ditched and a box of ammo.

Here in Texas jackasses can get tagged for DUI/DWI multiple times and still be on the road. When I contemplate someone killing my child in this manner - 50 miles wouldn't be enough for me to calm down enough to not shoot the bastard.

I think he showed great restraint by only firing one round - I would have emptied an entire magazine.

I'm glad he's dead and his family should replace the truck his son ruined.
Cui Bono

Re: A justifiable murder?
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2013, 06:49:54 PM »
I think this guy honestly could have gotten away with it with a plea of temporary insanity if he hadn't disposed of the gun.  They tested him for GSR so it is going to show that he either fired a gun or not recently, even though the case could be made that he fired a gun recently but it wasn't the one that shot the driver.  The neighbors said they heard gunshots minutes after the accident and his house is only 50 yards away, that's half a football field.  And the amount of time is definitely appropriate for a window of temporary insanity.  But he threw away the gun, which shows the he was able to tell right from wrong enough to dispose of the murder weapon.  If they find the gun he's fucked.  If not he's got a chance.

As far as justifiable murder, it's hard to say.  I don't believe that citizens should be bypassing the justice system for revenge.  But if he actually had a moment of temporary insanity via shock from a traumatic event then I might be inclined to let him go.  Considering it looks like he killed the guy, and that he tossed the gun afterwards, promotes the possibility that he took revenge, not a psychotic break.  So, not justifiable, but I might consider a reduced sentence.  My ruling.

Re: A justifiable murder?
« Reply #65 on: February 21, 2013, 12:51:15 AM »
Quote from: "commonsense822"
I think this guy honestly could have gotten away with it with a plea of temporary insanity if he hadn't disposed of the gun.  They tested him for GSR so it is going to show that he either fired a gun or not recently, even though the case could be made that he fired a gun recently but it wasn't the one that shot the driver.  The neighbors said they heard gunshots minutes after the accident and his house is only 50 yards away, that's half a football field.  And the amount of time is definitely appropriate for a window of temporary insanity.  But he threw away the gun, which shows the he was able to tell right from wrong enough to dispose of the murder weapon.  If they find the gun he's fucked.  If not he's got a chance.

As far as justifiable murder, it's hard to say.  I don't believe that citizens should be bypassing the justice system for revenge.  But if he actually had a moment of temporary insanity via shock from a traumatic event then I might be inclined to let him go.  Considering it looks like he killed the guy, and that he tossed the gun afterwards, promotes the possibility that he took revenge, not a psychotic break.  So, not justifiable, but I might consider a reduced sentence.  My ruling.
Knowing right from wrong is different from thinking, "Oh shit, that was illegal." Well... sort of. I TOTALLY understand this man's actions. I don't CONDONE it, but 300% understand how a parent could think, "HERE is the fucker that murdered my kids." Go home and back and come kill them, and then it hits them, "Oh SHIT!" Similarly, I would likely never condemn them in court.

Online Shiranu

Re: A justifiable murder?
« Reply #66 on: February 21, 2013, 04:28:16 AM »
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
If the guy had just whipped out a gun and shot, then I could see temporary insanity. But walking home, arming yourself, going back, then shooting a guy? That's starting to sound long enough to be per-meditated. I can't say what I would have done in his place (It is not a situation I can honestly place myself in), but as a nation of law and order he needs to be tried and "I would have wanted revenge, too" cannot be a sufficient defense.

This, especially last bit.

Offline Jutter

(No subject)
« Reply #67 on: February 21, 2013, 05:48:34 AM »
So there's the drunk driving part.
Then there's the temporary insanity or not part.
The vindictive vigilante part.
Other's have tackled those aspects already.

Maybe this should tie in with the gun-controll discussion as well. Acceptable uses of a gun would be self-defense, hunting, target shooting... but would a gun owner add revenge to that list during a debate on gun-controll?
No religion for me thank you very much; I 'm full of shit enough as it is.

Being flabbergasted about existence never made anyone disappear in a poof of flabbergas, so nevermind why we're here. We ARE here.

Offline Mathias

(No subject)
« Reply #68 on: February 21, 2013, 06:00:59 AM »
In this case I think the guy would with an ax, a baseball bat, what ever, and arms control would not be the primary issue. I still think the guy has to pay for what he did (just being parents to know what it is to lose a child), but the reason should be taken into account as a mitigating.
"There is no logic in the existence of any god".
 Myself.

Offline Plu

(No subject)
« Reply #69 on: February 21, 2013, 07:11:47 AM »
To be honest, if I were in that situation I would not be surprised if I'd beaten the guy to death with a tire iron. I don't think the gun really plays into it here, since the main reason for murder appears to be blind rage.

Offline Thumpalumpacus

Re:
« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2013, 11:38:16 AM »
Quote from: "Jutter"
[...]but would a gun owner add revenge to that list during a debate on gun-controll?

No, and nor should he.

I've not heard one gun owner argue that, either.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Re:
« Reply #71 on: February 21, 2013, 01:38:55 PM »
Quote from: "Jutter"
So there's the drunk driving part.
Then there's the temporary insanity or not part.
The vindictive vigilante part.
Other's have tackled those aspects already.

Maybe this should tie in with the gun-controll discussion as well. Acceptable uses of a gun would be self-defense, hunting, target shooting... but would a gun owner add revenge to that list during a debate on gun-controll?

That guy was going to die, whether or not he had a gun.