Man kills drunk driver who killed his children, was he right?

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.

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.