Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This actually happened a few years ago. Essentially this man witnessed his children struck and killed by a drunk driver. In despair he goes inside his house and gets his gun and comes back and shoots and kills the driver..who was a 20 yr. old male.

Anyways he obviously is arrested, but he more or less ends up not serving any jail time.

I guess I'm wondering, was this right or wrong? Not just what the man did, but the fact he got away with it? Since personally I can't find any real issue with the sentence this man received.

I personally think it was wrong. I mean not too many people would convict him but it doesn't change the fact he took a life that at the time wasn't threatening him

What race was he?

But no, I don't think he was wrong. The way you worded it, this all happened in a short span of time. Like Drunk guy hit kids > Dad saw > Dad got his gun > Dad killed guy. All in a few minutes.

I'd argue it was a crime of passion, or temporary insanity, especially if they were "children" as in under 12 years old and not just his kids. The grief of seeing your children killed a few feet away from you because someone was too dumb to not drink and drive would probably drive me over the edge too.

Yep the kids were under 12 and the guy was hispanic.

Another thing is that if the father had done nothing I feel it would be likely this driver wouldn't face serious consequences. I don't think he'd get life in prison or anything like that.

Especially if the guy had no prior record of any incidents like this..if he served any jail time it probably wouldn't be a lot. He essentially wouldn't of gotten the sentence he deserved because his lawyers would argue he didn't do it on purpose. Which isn't a valid excuse unless someone tied him down and force fed him booze and then forced him to get into a car and drive. He chose to drink and he chose to drive.

This isn't the Middle Ages, you can't just kill for revenge. He should serve time for manslaughter at least.

It was not right but I would do the same.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This isn't the Middle Ages, you can't just kill for revenge. He should serve time for manslaughter at least.

If the father hadn't done what he did do you feel the driver would of gotten the sentence he deserved? I.E. life in prison?

Not a chance in hell. Drunk drivers rarely, if ever, get the sentence they deserve.

Originally posted by Surtur
This actually happened a few years ago. Essentially this man witnessed his children struck and killed by a drunk driver. In despair he goes inside his house and gets his gun and comes back and shoots and kills the driver..who was a 20 yr. old male.

Anyways he obviously is arrested, but he more or less ends up not serving any jail time.

I guess I'm wondering, was this right or wrong? Not just what the man did, but the fact he got away with it? Since personally I can't find any real issue with the sentence this man received.
Sure, he was right. (I'd have done the same)
Its good he got away with it, too. (I would be willing to do the jail time)
He mustve had a good lawyer. (Hopefully mine would be that good)

Originally posted by Surtur
If the father hadn't done what he did do you feel the driver would of gotten the sentence he deserved? I.E. life in prison? The problem is that now we will never know because the father became a vigilante.

The drunk driver may have hated himself so much for doing this he turned his life around and helped a lot of people. Or he could have have committed suicide. Or maybe that would have happened but once again someone took Justice into their own hands

Anyone ever notice that when these drunk pieces of shit drink and drive and get into accidents..more often then not it's innocent people who die while the drunk survives? Doesn't happen 100% of the time, but still.

Originally posted by Newjak
The problem is that now we will never know because the father became a vigilante.

The drunk driver may have hated himself so much for doing this he turned his life around and helped a lot of people. Or he could have have committed suicide. Or maybe that would have happened but once again someone took Justice into their own hands

You can't seriously think the guy would of gotten life in prison.

I think it was wrong, I think the father should serve years of jail time, I also think the driver should have faced some jail time, but definitely not life in prison.

It was wrong for him to kill the guy. But I would have done the same. I am happy he did not get jail time. Drunk driver got what he deserved.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it was wrong, I think the father should serve years of jail time, I also think the driver should have faced some jail time, but definitely not life in prison.

So I take it you don't believe in "temporary insanity" as a valid defense in certain circumstances? Should that as a defense be thrown out and never used in any cases?

I think the circumstances of a crime should be taken into account, but I don't think "temporary insanity" should by default mean that someone doesn't have to face legal consequences

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the circumstances of a crime should be taken into account, but I don't think "temporary insanity" should by default mean that someone doesn't have to face legal consequences

But wouldn't you agree seeing your children run down right before your eyes would pretty much make the defense in this case valid?

You also say you think the driver should get jail time, but not life in prison. Even though the children he killed can never enjoy life again. What kind of sentence do you feel the driver would of gotten. He most likely wouldn't get life in prison, but do you think the sentence would of been what he deserved? I would think 10-15 years in jail should be the minimum. Hell if you remember the whole thing where the guys occupied that building in Oregon or Washington or whatever? And how they were pissed people had been thrown back in jail because they didn't serve the mandatory time. Which was 5 years..for arson.

So would you agree that if we sentence people to a minimum 5 years for arson(where nobody died) that someone who drinks and drives and kills multiple children should get a substantially longer sentence?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it was wrong, I think the father should serve years of jail time, I also think the driver should have faced some jail time, but definitely not life in prison.

Originally posted by Surtur
But wouldn't you agree seeing your children run down right before your eyes would pretty much make the defense in this case valid?

You also say you think the driver should get jail time, but not life in prison. Even though the children he killed can never enjoy life again. What kind of sentence do you feel the driver would of gotten. He most likely wouldn't get life in prison, but do you think the sentence would of been what he deserved? I would think 10-15 years in jail should be the minimum. Hell if you remember the whole thing where the guys occupied that building in Oregon or Washington or whatever? And how they were pissed people had been thrown back in jail because they didn't serve the mandatory time. Which was 5 years..for arson.

So would you agree that if we sentence people to a minimum 5 years for arson(where nobody died) that someone who drinks and drives and kills multiple children should get a substantially longer sentence?

No, I wouldn't agree with either of your "wouldn't you agree" questions. I do not think we as society should accept people killing other people in grief. And I also think that 15 years for drunken vehicular manslaughter is too much.

He wouldn't and should not serve jail time. There is a defensive argument called "temporary insanity." It has worked many times. Yes, you can lose your shit completely and do stuff you would never do. Watching your children MURDERED (second degree murder, bitches) right in front of your eyes is certainly something that can drive any normal person insane for a bit.

Maybe the father has to pay the penalty of giving lectures to high school students on the dangers of drunk driving for a year, once a month, to local high schools? Seems like something the father would be willing to do AND it could, perhaps, save lives.


But I cannot see any legit reason to force the father to serve prison time for going ape-shit after watching his children be murdered by a drunk driver. IMO, it is cruel and unusual.

Originally posted by riv6672
Sure, he was right. (I'd have done the same)
Its good he got away with it, too. (I would be willing to do the jail time)
He mustve had a good lawyer. (Hopefully mine would be that good)

Gotta say, if both of them were his children, then he really doesn't need to stay out of prison, anyway, for killing the drunk driver.

If he had other children then he shouldn't be selfish and remove himself from their lives because children need their father.

In other words, some penalties are worth it. If that guy killed his only 2 children...then he can afford to be selfish.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I wouldn't agree with either of your "wouldn't you agree" questions. I do not think we as society should accept people killing other people in grief. And I also think that 15 years for drunken vehicular manslaughter is too much. What would be an appropriate sentence then, in your opinion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not think we as society should accept people killing other people in grief.

Grief? That's the word you would use? Don't you think you're grossly downplaying the father's mental state?


"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you were just grieving your loss by murdering someone? Yeah, everyone grieves in their own way."


Doesn't compute.


More like this:

"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you completely lost your shit and shot the guy who ran your children over? And you are probably suffering from PTSD, to this day, from having been through this whole thing? Yeah, that's understandable. I hope one day you can get the chance to grieve and get the help you need to get to a normal place and state of mind."



And what you suggest, expecting society to never accept retaliatory homicide, is just not reasonable. We'd have to get there through eugenics where we eliminate the violent nature and the emotional attachment nature of humans to achieve what you suggest. No, I am not kidding. It would take some serious genetic modification to get humans to stop retaliatory homicide.

I feel for the guy and as a parent can somewhat put myself in his shoes, but "temporary insanity" should not be a get out of jail free card. It should come in to play when sentencing the guy, so he doesn't get too harsh a sentence, as I think losing your shit in a situation like that and doing something you normally wouldn't do is legitimate.

How much time? I can't say, maybe whatever manslaughter is with a reduction due to the temporary insanity.

If you were in that position, you would've killed him, and don't say you wouldn't.

If I had children and someone did anything to hurt them, I'm going to put your through tenfold the pain you put them through.

Lol, he only SHOT the guy?

I'd have tortured that ****er to death in the worst way.

People tend to give drunk people a free pass, those children are dead, and its entirely his fault, drunk and sober are just titles in my eyes at that point, you still killed children because you decided to drive home drunk.

Going into the home to retrieve the gun so that he could return to the scene of the accident to shoot the driver demonstrates that the man was not suffering from diminished capacity.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
If you were in that position, you would've killed him, and don't say you wouldn't.

If I had children and someone did anything to hurt them, I'm going to put your through tenfold the pain you put them through.

Assuming that was to me? Very likely, I can only imagine I'd completely lose my shit like that father did and attacked the bastard with my bare hands (not a gun owner).

That doesn't mean what I did was just and I should get away with killing. A society shouldn't make laws based on an individual's emotions. The "what if was your sister that was raped, children murdered, mother mutilated" etc. etc. etc. argument doesn't fly, or at least shouldn't when we're talking about laws.

**** the law, the driver deserved death, its entirely his fault.

Originally posted by Robtard
Assuming that was to me? Very likely, I can only imagine I'd completely lose my shit like that father did.

That doesn't mean what I did was just and I should get away with killing. A society shouldn't make laws based on an individual's emotions. The "what if was your sister that was raped, children murdered, mother mutilated" etc. etc. etc. argument doesn't fly, or at least shouldn't when we're talking about laws. If anyone did any of those things to someone I cared about, I'd kill that person and never ever regret it no matter how many years in jail I'll get, just to make them pay.

I'd take the death penalty for revenge, because in the end he's still dead, so in my eyes, I've won.

Originally posted by Robtard
Assuming that was to me? Very likely, I can only imagine I'd completely lose my shit like that father did and attacked the bastard with my bare hands (not a gun owner).

Yes, this is more what I would do...bare hands. That's more "Ape-shit" than going to retrieve a gun like Adam pointed out.

If I was watching it happen, yeah I'd probably run over, pull him out and beat him to death while making unintelligible noises.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, this is more what I would do...bare hands. That's more "Ape-shit" than going to retrieve a gun like Adam pointed out.

Him getting a gun doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't mental though, imo. I'm not a gun owner, so going for a gun is not something that would form in my mind, but I can imagine that is something in the back of a gun owners mind.

Let me put it in a real world example: If someone slams my door (not that this is a normal occurrence), my alarmed mind instantly thinks of the knives I own.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
What would be an appropriate sentence then, in your opinion?

5 years

Originally posted by Bardock42
5 years

5 years.

1,825 Days. Actually a little shorter since one would be a leap year.

The kids were both under 12. So not only is it drunk driving, reckless endangerment, second degree murder, it's all that stuff, and then add more for doing it to minors, literal children as they weren't even considered pre-teens yet.


You honestly think using a 3 ton death machine and running over innocent children because you were too much of a shit to call an UBER when you were piss drunk only deserves 5 years in jail?

People get longer than that on white collar crime and victimless crimes like selling weed.

I doubt he'd last the full 5 years though once people found out what he did.

Yes, I think a very unfortunate mistake, an awful decisions n that lead to the death to people like that deserves exactly 5 years in jail. Coincidentally that's also about the time I think the father deserves.

Tbh, I think the people who think that a man who retrieved a gun and then shot a young man dead should get off scot free are the ones with a messed up sense of justice.

Maybe he meant 5 year per crime/death

Nope

I don't know, 2.5 years for killing someone because you were knowingly reckless seems too light for me. It's not like people are unaware that drinking and driving is extremely dangerous to yourself and others around you, the people are sober/clear-or-mind (presumably) before doing it.

Not saying you're taking this angle, but I've heard the "they were drunk, they didn't realize the danger" excuse and it makes no sense to me. They weren't drunk at some point and they chose to drink before driving.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know, 2.5 years for killing someone because you were knowingly reckless seems too light for me. It's not like people are unaware that drinking and driving is extremely dangerous to yourself and others around you, the people are sober/clear-or-mind (presumably) before doing it.

Not saying you're taking this angle, but I've heard the "they were drunk, they didn't realize the danger" excuse and it makes no sense to me. They weren't drunk at some point and they chose to drink before driving.

I don't think counts should be added like that. The crime was recklessly killing people, whether it is one or four people that died in the accident I don't think should matter, at least not as a straight multiplier.

Don't agree with that. Killing ten people is worse than killing one, imo, regardless if it was intentional or due to being reckless.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't agree with that. Killing ten people is worse than killing one, imo, regardless if it was intentional or due to being reckless.

Sure, it is worse, but it doesn't require a ten times worse punishment. That's what I'm saying.

So say it was 5 kids. All under 12. All minding their business being children, and the drunk guy ran over all 5 of them. 1,825 days in jail, with him being able to go out and live his life after half a decade is a fair punishment for stealing 5 innocent lives who did nothing wrong because he knowingly got in his car and tried to drive home drunk?

What if it was 10 kids? Still 5 years?

Originally posted by Bardock42
5 years Lol.

Why do you put so little value on lives?

5 years for killing two children lol. Haven't people gotten more time in prison for embezzlement? Haven't rapists gotten more time in prison? Or child molesters?

Also wait don't we take the magnitude of the crime into account for punishment on a variety of things? Or will I get the same punishment for stealing a candy bar as I would for stealing a car?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it was wrong, I think the father should serve years of jail time, I also think the driver should have faced some jail time, but definitely not life in prison.
This question is for posters in general, not Bardovk in particular, as i know he's very much a bleeding heart.

Why not life in prison?
If you kill a person while driving drunk its murder.

Also can someone explain to me why in this country the second a person gets even one DUI we don't force them to install a breathalizer machine in their car? One of those things that you breathe into and if you fail the test you can't start your car.

In fact, why hasn't this become a standard safety feature in all cars?

Originally posted by Bardock42
5 years Why are you so callous toward human death and suffering?

This kind of reminds me of that movie "A Time to Kill" with Samuel L Jackson.

Originally posted by Bardock42
but it doesn't require a ten times worse punishment.

Why?

Yet bardock hates what happened with the affluenza kid. Maybe white guilt

Go figure

He hated that his money couldn't get him out of it? And that the system did it's job?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I think a very unfortunate mistake, an awful decisions n that lead to the death to people like that deserves exactly 5 years in jail. Coincidentally that's also about the time I think the father deserves.

Tbh, I think the people who think that a man who retrieved a gun and then shot a young man dead should get off scot free are the ones with a messed up sense of justice. Its not a mistake, he chose to drive drunk, he stole poor innocent lives.

What if it was your children he killed?

You'd see things differently then.

You don't try to see it from the point of view of a father, you try to see it from the point of view of a bystander.

I'd kill the man with my bare hands and plead guilty with no regrets.

Originally posted by Bardock42
5 years I hope you get hit by a bus, you insignificant little ****.

Lies, you have to kill at least one person before you can earn Bardock's attention and love.

Lets just all find out where he lives and beat the shit out of him, please?

He gets away with too much.

I'm pretty sure he was joking though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
5 years lmao

You can only "joke" about a thing so much before that becomes your standard opinion. A guy can "joke" about being racist, but if he keeps doing it...he's racist. He stands by these types of opinions so much I can't see him thinking any other way.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also can someone explain to me why in this country the second a person gets even one DUI we don't force them to install a breathalizer machine in their car? One of those things that you breathe into and if you fail the test you can't start your car.

In fact, why hasn't this become a standard safety feature in all cars?

Respect, if you thought of this idea yourself, and there's not actually such a thing on the market. It's a good idea even if you didn't come up with this first, but I'm seriously genuinely impressed if you did, for I've not yet seen ANYONE propose a more theoretically workable solution than this.

Originally posted by Surtur
This kind of reminds me of that movie "A Time to Kill" with Samuel L Jackson.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tbh, I think the people who think that a man who retrieved a gun and then shot a young man dead should get off scot free are the ones with a messed up sense of justice.

That's not a kosher perspective. Justice was served: the drunk driver was killed. Actually, he couldn't be killed twice. So justice was not truly served and they aren't even.

You have to be careful with justice. It ends up at the Laws of Hammurabi.

What you're asking for is actually lenient justice. You're asking that justice not be cold-served and that mercy be granted via an appeal to human civility (admirable, imo: you should be applauded for your perspective because it is less apey and more civil).




And Bardock42 was not joking.



On one hand, I suggest that we no longer have a "justice" system and, instead, have a "rehabilitation and reintegration" system. Meaning, no one is put behind bars to serve justice. They are put behind bars to rehab them and reintegrate them back into society so they can be productive again.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I'm pretty sure he was joking though. Considering its Bardock, I doubt it.

Bardock probably thinks guys like Manson and Bundy only needed 5 years in prison

Originally posted by dadudemon
On one hand, I suggest that we no longer have a "justice" system and, instead, have a "rehabilitation and reintegration" system. Meaning, no one is put behind bars to serve justice. They are put behind bars to rehab them and reintegrate them back into society so they can be productive again. And when that doesn't work? Because in many cases it wouldn't.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
And when that doesn't work? Because in many cases it wouldn't. Then they will receive my brand of justice.

I don't see how in an argument where one side says that both people having killed others should serve prison time (me) and the other side says that a man who executed another human being should get off free and perhaps even be praised, I am the callous one.

It is also worrying that it seems that to many here the fact that it was children that died, seems essential. It makes me uncomfortable to think that if he had killed two middle aged men with his drunk driving many of you might view this as a much lesser crime.

At any rate, drunk drivers do somewhat endanger those around them, but the reaction that people have when an accident happens is out of proportion. For one, we don't even know if this accident could have been prevented if the man was sober, perhaps he did all he could and yet the accident still happens. Sober people are in fatal accidents all the time. Further for the people who call this murder, that's just ridiculous hyperbole, and our justice system treats it that way. If the rhetoric of some of you was correct, than DUIs would not be punished with losing your license for 2 months, they'd be punished as attemtped murder, which is obviously absurd.

I will reply to posts directly addressed to me in a separate post.

Originally posted by KingD19
So say it was 5 kids. All under 12. All minding their business being children, and the drunk guy ran over all 5 of them. 1,825 days in jail, with him being able to go out and live his life after half a decade is a fair punishment for stealing 5 innocent lives who did nothing wrong because he knowingly got in his car and tried to drive home drunk?

What if it was 10 kids? Still 5 years?

Yeah, still five years.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Lol.

Why do you put so little value on lives?
I do not equate prison terms with the value put on human life. If I were to humor you though, I would question why people who want the father to get off free put so little value on human life (infinitely little).

Originally posted by Surtur
5 years for killing two children lol. Haven't people gotten more time in prison for embezzlement? Haven't rapists gotten more time in prison? Or child molesters?

Also wait don't we take the magnitude of the crime into account for punishment on a variety of things? Or will I get the same punishment for stealing a candy bar as I would for stealing a car?

These embezzlers, rapists, child molesters don't accidentally embezzle, rape and child molest. That is a very important part in considering sentencing.

Of course the magnitude gets taken into account, but not as a straight multiplier. If you get one year for stealing a snickers bar, you do not get 100 years for stealing a box of 100 snickers bars.

Originally posted by riv6672
This question is for posters in general, not Bardovk in particular, as i know he's very much a bleeding heart.

Why not life in prison?
If you kill a person while driving drunk its murder.

It's not, it's vehicular manslaugher.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why?

Because rehabilitation and punishment of criminal energy are aspects of criminal sentencing and they do not scale linearly with the damage of the crime.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Its not a mistake, he chose to drive drunk, he stole poor innocent lives.

What if it was your children he killed?

You'd see things differently then.

You don't try to see it from the point of view of a father, you try to see it from the point of view of a bystander.

I'd kill the man with my bare hands and plead guilty with no regrets.

If it was my children I may feel differently, but the criminal justice system should not take my emotionally clouded view as basis for it's work.


Originally posted by Jmanghan
I hope you get hit by a bus, you insignificant little ****.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Lets just all find out where he lives and beat the shit out of him, please?

He gets away with too much.

That seems like an overreaction

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Bardock probably thinks guys like Manson and Bundy only needed 5 years in prison

Taking that logic to its conclusion. Do you feel that what Manson and Bundy did is only as bad as vehicular manslaughter?

Like i said, i wasnt asking you, just using your ridiculous statement to ask the other posters.
I already know you're a bleeding heart, no conversation with you will ever be productive, as you wont see any other point of view.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not equate prison terms with the value put on human life. If I were to humor you though, I would question why people who want the father to get off free put so little value on human life (infinitely little).Why that would humor me? I never said anything similar

That doesn't change the fact that you want to encourage irresponsibility by giving derisory sentences.

These embezzlers, rapists, child molesters don't accidentally embezzle, rape and child molest. That is a very important part in considering sentencing. These drunk drivers don't accidentally get drunk and put themselves behind the steering wheel. That is a very important part in considering sentencing.

Of course the magnitude gets taken into account, but not as a straight multiplier. If you get one year for stealing a snickers bar, you do not get 100 years for stealing a box of 100 snickers bars. Magnitude still plays a big role, specially when deaths are involved.


Because rehabilitation and punishment of criminal energy are aspects of criminal sentencing and they do not scale linearly with the damage of the crime.That doesn't mean killing one person, two or ten is going to be the same. Common sense man.



If it was my children I may feel differently, but the criminal justice system should not take my emotionally clouded view as basis for it's work. At least there's something we can agree on in this matter.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
And when that doesn't work? Because in many cases it wouldn't.

I agree: there would be many cases where rehab just won't work with some criminals.

But for the other extreme majority of criminals where is has been proven hundreds of thousands of times over that proper criminal rehabilitation and treatment programs actually work, let's focus on that group instead of pandering to an extreme minority just because it is uncomfortable for some people's primitive minds to give up the notion of "lock them up forever or execute them."

Before someone like you can make such a huge intellectual and civility leap in comprehension, you first must throw away any notion that the US has a proper Criminal Justice System. The name already has a problem because it is called the "Criminal Justice System." That should clearly indicate what type of system we have in the US: it is focused on getting revenge for victims and/or punishing offenders...NOT rehabilitating them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see how in an argument where one side says that both people having killed others should serve prison time (me) and the other side says that a man who executed another human being should get off free and perhaps even be praised, I am the callous one.

You said give him 5 years though. When we give rapists and other criminals lengthier sentences.



I don't think people are saying if it was two adults it wouldn't be as bad. On the other hand surely you've seen this done time and time again right? The whole "kids are more important then adults" thing. You've never seen a movie where a bunch of people are in danger and they pull the cliche "women and children first" stuff? Of course due to equality women definitely shouldn't be prioritized over men when it comes to saving them.

I think with children there is the idea of a life not lived. Middle aged people would of at least gotten to experience life. Sure it's true they could of had another 20-40 years of life, but they got to experience a lot more then these children.



What we do know is that if he never chose to get into a car while drunk that these children would still be alive. So his choice to be a dipshit and drink and drive cost two people their lives. He didn't accidentally get into his car and turn it on while drunk..it was a choice. Also alcohol tends to slow your reflexes, etc. so while we can't say for sure if he was sober the accident wouldn't of happened.. If he wasn't drunk he would of been more alert to what he was doing and his own surroundings.

You are also correct people have fatal accidents while stone cold sober..so taking that into account it just makes it even worse this guy decided to get behind the wheel of a car. You're more likely to get into an accident if you're driving drunk.



I think if you get a DUI you should have your license permanently taken away. Either that or you are forced to install a breathalizer machine in your car(and the drunk driver is the one who needs to pay for it).

We have far far too many people who get multiple DUI's and still don't lose their driving privileges forever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree: there would be many cases where rehab just won't work with some criminals.

But for the other extreme majority of criminals where is has been proven hundreds of thousands of times over that proper criminal rehabilitation and treatment programs actually work, let's focus on that group instead of pandering to an extreme minority just because it is uncomfortable for some people's primitive minds to give up the notion of "lock them up forever or execute them."

Before someone like you can make such a huge intellectual and civility leap in comprehension, you first must throw away any notion that the US has a proper Criminal Justice System. The name already has a problem because it is called the "Criminal Justice System." That should clearly indicate what type of system we have in the US: it is focused on getting revenge for victims and/or punishing offenders...NOT rehabilitating them. Has it really been proven 'hundreds of thousands of times over'?

Also, that 'minority' still exists, as uncomfortable that may be for minds who think there's always a right answer.

Speaking of which, you did not really answer my question.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
I hope you get hit by a bus, you insignificant little ****. Originally posted by Jmanghan
Lets just all find out where he lives and beat the shit out of him, please?

He gets away with too much.

Dude, calm the **** down.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think if you get a DUI you should have your license permanently taken away. Either that or you are forced to install a breathalizer machine in your car(and the drunk driver is the one who needs to pay for it).

We have far far too many people who get multiple DUI's and still don't lose their driving privileges forever.

While I do agree that the punishment for DUI's is whacked, as I recall one fairly local case her in California of one repeat drunk driver who have five or six DUIs under his belt and still hadn't permanently lost his license. He went on to drink/drive his motorcycle yet again; ended up killing a young girl in front of her father and maimed the father (lost his leg) while they were using the crosswalk. I was called in for jury duty for his murder trial, I ended up being excused out, which I was glad for, long story short as I completely digressed from my point, he was sent to San Quentin and another inmate murdered him not long after.

Anyhow, the point: Permanently losing your license for the first DUI is way too strict, especially for people who were just at the legal limit. IMO, the DUI punishment should scale with how drunk you were; if someone is driving at 4x the legal limit, their punishment should be more severe than someone who is just over.

Remember I said the license should either be taken away or you have to put in a breathalizer to start your car. I think that is fair.

But then again I think every new car should come with something like that. It would save a lot of lives.

^^^nice. Very non chirpy.

All I'm gonna say is that if a drunk driver killed my daughter, none of you would ever see or hear from me again because I'd personally kill the piece of shit.

That's not anger, overstating, or exaggerating.

I. Would. Kill. Him.

If my only child died, then I seriously doubt that I'd have much left to lose or to live for. At least in prison I'd get three hots and a cot.

Originally posted by Impediment
All I'm gonna say is that if a drunk driver killed my daughter, none of you would ever see or hear from me again because I'd personally kill the piece of shit.

That's not anger, overstating, or exaggerating.

I. Would. Kill. Him.

If my only child died, then I seriously doubt that I'd have much left to lose or to live for. At least in prison I'd get three hots and a cot. Free sex too.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^nice. Very non chirpy.

VBCUdDZXCQY

Originally posted by Mindset
Free sex too.

Doubtful.

I'm a former TDCJ correctional officer and I would have to be put into protective custody segregation for my own personal safety in case inmates realize what I once was and put a hit out on me.

Originally posted by Mindset
Free sex too.

Sort of like the free sex that apparently 1 out of 5 men on college campuses are dishing out.

Originally posted by Impediment
Doubtful.

I'm a former TDCJ correctional officer and I would have to be put into protective custody segregation for my own personal safety in case inmates realize what I once was and put a hit out on me. You're gonna get this free sex whether you want it or not, ok buddy.

People in this thread aren't thinking with their brains, they're thinking with their emotions.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People in this thread aren't thinking with their brains, they're thinking with their emotions.

I know right? Just 5 years in jail for driving drunk and killing some kids? People definitely aren't using their brains so I agree with you 100% on that.

I love how people are trying to think for me and analyze my response like they have a PhD.

Originally posted by Impediment
I love how people are trying to think for me and analyze my response like they have a PhD.

To be fair I'm sure some of these people totally took a psychology class for one semester in college. That practically makes them a licensed therapist.

Originally posted by Surtur
You said give him 5 years though. When we give rapists and other criminals lengthier sentences.

Not a good comparison. imo, killing someone while drunk driving is still considered an accidental death. Sure it's reckless and whatnot, but it's not intentional like a rape. Which I'm pretty sure has been B42's stance from the start. Intent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Grief? That's the word you would use? Don't you think you're grossly downplaying the father's mental state?


"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you were just grieving your loss by murdering someone? Yeah, everyone grieves in their own way."


Doesn't compute.


More like this:

"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you completely lost your shit and shot the guy who ran your children over? And you are probably suffering from PTSD, to this day, from having been through this whole thing? Yeah, that's understandable. I hope one day you can get the chance to grieve and get the help you need to get to a normal place and state of mind."



And what you suggest, expecting society to never accept retaliatory homicide, is just not reasonable. We'd have to get there through eugenics where we eliminate the violent nature and the emotional attachment nature of humans to achieve what you suggest. No, I am not kidding. It would take some serious genetic modification to get humans to stop retaliatory homicide.
So much win in this post

I am happy to see many people sharing this view


EDIT: Btw someone mentioned that "temporary insanity" is treated as a "out of jail card" nowadays.

Well, "being drunk" is definitely treated as a some kind of defense too. To the point that I’ve heard of cases that someone who was planning a crime (like burlary, for instance) had a drink or two beforehand so in case he’s busted he can pull that "I was drunk" card out of his arse as a free pass.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not a good comparison. imo, killing someone while drunk driving is still considered an accidental death. Sure it's reckless and whatnot, but it's not intentional like a rape. Which I'm pretty sure has been B42's stance from the start. Intent.

Yep intent, and the guy intentionally consumed booze and then intentionally got behind the wheel of a car. Do you deny this? Since that is all that needs to be said: nobody forced him to booze it up and nobody forced him to drive while boozed up. It was those decisions that lead to the deaths of 2 kids.

So he should still do more time then a friggin rapist. All the intent we need is the choices of getting drunk and deciding to drive. It doesn't matter if he specifically intended to run some people over, what matters is he knew the potential dangers of driving drunk and still did it anyways.

The guy wasn't from a wealthy family, so he definitely wouldn't of been able to use a bullshit defense like the "affluenza" teen did. Anyone who drives a car and went through the process of getting their license knows how deadly and dangerous it is to drive drunk. On top of that there is probably a decent chance that he experienced what a decent amount of people do when they get their license: being shown videos of horrid car wrecks caused by drunk driving.

The exact second he chose to start the ignition in his car and drive away even though he knew he was drunk..is the exact moment where this pretty much stopped being an accident. Hell he wasn't even 21 so he had no business even consuming alcohol.

One kid was 11 the other was 12. So at the very least he should get 23 years in prison..if he actually hadn't been killed. Which I'm glad he was since now he can't ever hurt anyone else.

Originally posted by Surtur

One kid was 11 the other was 12. So at the very least he should get 23 years in prison.

Yeah, one year for however many years the people whose lives he snuffed out had lived. Unless someone forced him to consume alcohol and then drive.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep intent, and the guy intentionally consumed booze and then intentionally got behind the wheel of a car. Do you deny this? Since that is all that needs to be said: nobody forced him to booze it up and nobody forced him to drive while boozed up. It was those decisions that lead to the deaths of 2 kids.

So he should still do more time then a friggin rapist. All the intent we need is the choices of getting drunk and deciding to drive. It doesn't matter if he specifically intended to run some people over, what matters is he knew the potential dangers of driving drunk and still did it anyways.

The guy wasn't from a wealthy family, so he definitely wouldn't of been able to use a bullshit defense like the "affluenza" teen did. Anyone who drives a car and went through the process of getting their license knows how deadly and dangerous it is to drive drunk. On top of that there is probably a decent chance that he experienced what a decent amount of people do when they get their license: being shown videos of horrid car wrecks caused by drunk driving.

The exact second he chose to start the ignition in his car and drive away even though he knew he was drunk..is the exact moment where this pretty much stopped being an accident. Hell he wasn't even 21 so he had no business even consuming alcohol.

One kid was 11 the other was 12. So at the very least he should get 23 years in prison..if he actually hadn't been killed. Which I'm glad he was since now he can't ever hurt anyone else.

No, I pointed out earlier and I'm someone who believes in having harsher penalties for DUIs.

Again, despite his recklessness, it wasn't intentional like a rapist committing a rape.

The "affluenza" thing is an outlier and it's complete nonsense. That kid should have served jail time in juvenile hall and then upped to adult prison. It wasn't his first offense, he also stole a vehicle and robbed beer that night.

LoL, come one. So killing a 90 year old is 90 times worse than killing a 1 year old?

Yeah man totally, haven't you read these studies? People think old people don't bone, but they bone A SHITLOAD. You are taking that away from them by killing them.

But yeah, he intentionally got in the car drunk though. He knew it could cause the deaths of others and he did it anyways.

But yeah I wouldn't actually try to do the "1 year for every year the person you killed was alive". If it were up to me I'd put him in jail and throw away the key. Actually if it were up to me I'd do exactly what the father did lol.

The killing aspect is still not intentional like rape or first degree murder. Reckless sure and I'm all more stiffer penalties for DUI related deaths, but comparing a DUI-death to something like rape is faulty, when talking about intent.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Speaking of which, you did not really answer my question.


I did answer: it simply doesn't work on a very very very small percentage of criminals (when proper rehabilitation programs are used).

In that case, execute them.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Has it really been proven 'hundreds of thousands of times over'?

Oh, so there have not been millions upon millions of reformed criminals go through incarceration with rehabilitation programs, and didn't re-offend once released and become productive members of society?

Wow, this is news to me. Guess we need to go re-arrest all of those people, right?


Originally posted by Surtur
To be fair I'm sure some of these people totally took a psychology class for one semester in college. That practically makes them a licensed therapist.



Lost my shit. Top notch.

Originally posted by Stigma
So much win in this post

I am happy to see many people sharing this view


You had better ****ing believe that post is made of win. uhuh

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, one year for however many years the people whose lives he snuffed out had lived. Unless someone forced him to consume alcohol and then drive. Going by this you'd be ok with his 5 years sentence if he killed 5 one year old babies?

Originally posted by Robtard
The killing aspect is still not intentional like rape or first degree murder. Reckless sure and I'm all more stiffer penalties for DUI related deaths, but comparing a DUI-death to something like rape is faulty, when talking about intent.

It's not always about intent, it's about the consequences of your horrible decisions. Accidentally killing two kids because you're drunk is worse then purposely raping someone.

You can get 5 years or more for embezzlement too. But we both agree killing two children due to drunk driving is worse right?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Going by this you'd be ok with his 5 years sentence if he killed 5 one year old babies?

I also said I actually wouldn't do it. I'd just toss them into prison for a long time, regardless of age.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Going by this you'd be ok with his 5 years sentence if he killed 5 one year old babies?

Could be worse. If all he killed was babies they could get him community service at Planned Parenthood.

Plus babies are evil racist liars that lack souls.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html

I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and I know from experience I can throw a baby a pretty good distance.

I always preferred this game myself.

https://49.media.tumblr.com/e0c46e4d3dac8ca429965139b7c46f7b/tumblr_n4u28t8WiB1s0p42xo1_500.gif

I have tried to help babies before. I tried to teach this baby how to do the Harlem Shake. Unfortunately I took the "shake" part far too literally and..things did not end particularly well. I think the parents overreacted though since I did ultimately decide not to charge them any money for the lesson.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Going by this you'd be ok with his 5 years sentence if he killed 5 one year old babies?

Well, that depends. Did he rape them before killing them or did he kill them by accidentally running them over while drunk driving?




Good Lord, what the hell...


Originally posted by Flyattractor
Could be worse. If all he killed was babies they could get him community service at Planned Parenthood.

H-holy shit.

Or catering to a feminist convention?

Yikes...two of the SCARIEST words you can hear in this day and age are "feminist convention".

Hate begets hate. I completely understand why he did it but the stronger person is always the one that chooses to set the more righteous moral example. However I really don't care. I say he's right but he got caught so he should be held accountable. In other words.., don't get caught.

Originally posted by Surtur
I have tried to help babies before. I tried to teach this baby how to do the Harlem Shake. Unfortunately I took the "shake" part far too literally and..things did not end particularly well. I think the parents overreacted though since I did ultimately decide not to charge them any money for the lesson.
Well f**k...

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, calm the **** down. No one should hold such little value on human lives being taken. Simply on what he said, he's an unforgivable ******* just for the notion of having the guy only get 5 years when he killed several children. He decided to get drunk, and drive, and its all his fault, he deserves everything he gets.

And none of you will change my mind on that matter.

Originally posted by Robtard
The killing aspect is still not intentional like rape or first degree murder. Reckless sure and I'm all more stiffer penalties for DUI related deaths, but comparing a DUI-death to something like rape is faulty, when talking about intent. DUI or not, he still killed 2 children right in front of their Father's eyes.

If I were the Father, I'd most likely have beat the guy to death, and then, presumably having nothing to live for, I'd turn the gun on myself.

That man will never be the same again, and that guy's death won't bring back his children.

The thing is I don't think Rob would actually say that purposely raping someone is worse then killing two kids because you decided to drive drunk.

One of these things require the dark arts to come back from..the other is rape.

Sad event.

I do not condone killing but I am sympathetic towards the father and his actions under the given circumstances. Watching your kids die in front of you is really painful.

We have other similar incidents like this:

NDccJLcHdGw

Father catches a guy molesting his daughter and beats the guy to death. Doesn't actually say if he got away with it, but I'm guessing he didn't serve much time.

EDIT: Yep, he wasn't indicted. I feel once again that had the child molester lived he probably would of served less then a decade in prison, especially if he had no prior charges. So reading about these various instances just goes to show me that sometimes we give people far too lenient punishments for certain things.

Originally posted by Surtur
We have other similar incidents like this:

NDccJLcHdGw

Father catches a guy molesting his daughter and beats the guy to death. Doesn't actually say if he got away with it, but I'm guessing he didn't serve much time.

EDIT: Yep, he wasn't indicted. I feel once again that had the child molester lived he probably would of served less then a decade in prison, especially if he had no prior charges. So reading about these various instances just goes to show me that sometimes we give people far too lenient punishments for certain things.
The solution is pretty simple: harsher punishements. For pedophiles - 25+ years or a life sentence (plus chemical castration if decided by court); for murderers - death penalty.

bump.

Did you bump this for a reason?

For a PM.