Murder or needed to be killed in Texas?

[Olevern]

What say you, murder or needed to be killed?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2165571132001/father-accused-of-killing-drunk-driver-who-ran-down-his-sons/

[DLCTEX]

Temporary insanity. Piece of cake defense.

[wallenba]

He should be punished. A stiff fine of $1.00, payable by yearly installments of $0.01. This is not funny. I say it because of how little sympathy I have for that drunk. They never seem to learn.

[x101airborne]

That guy fits for one of those "Dumb-butt tags" we keep asking Department of Wildlife for.
No season, 3 tags per hunter, attach to the ear and call animal control for removal.

[shredder]

Can't say I can blame him. If that happened to me, I do not know what I would do. Going out the truck door and seeing what he saw then realizing the guy was drunk.......

The only good news is that one less drunk driver is on the road. Everything else about this is horrid.

[Nocturnal Stumblebutt]

Depending on the distance to his house, it is likely that he will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter being a homicide that occurs in "the heat of passion" with "adequate provocation." However, if the prosecution can prove that the time it took to walk from the accident, to his house, and back was sufficient to be considered a "cooling of period," then the murder charge will stick. Also, the decision to walk to the house to retrieve a weapon could be spun, by the prosecution, into premeditation, which could get him 1st degree murder.

Hopefully he has a sympathetic jury and a VERY skilled lawyer.

Compliments of your resident Boolit Casting Criminal Defense Lawyer.

[Trey45]

Jury nullification. The drunk needed to be killed.
Speaking as someone who has lost two grandparents to a drunk driver, I have ZERO tolerance for drunks or drunk drivers.
Thankfully the drunk who killed my grandparents died when his car caught on fire. I hope he's still burning.

I need to add here, I don't care about people who have the occasional drink, or drink all they want to AT HOME, but you get behind the wheel after drinking you deserve what you get.

[captaint]

I think this man will get convicted. And he should get jail time. Maybe, like 10 days.
That would be an interesting jury to be part of, no ?? Mike

[Hickory]

The killer was killed.
How many times have drunk drivers been turned loose and only to ended up killing someone,
The killer was killed.

[Doc Highwall]

I agree one less drunk with a weapon that has four wheels attacking innocent people.

[Cactus Farmer]

Did I hear the driver was 20 yo? Not legal to drink at 20. Who bought the booze? Charge them with accessory to murder for buying the kid the stuff.

[jmort]

Bad deal all around

[runfiverun]

if he had acted immediatly and choked the driver to death,or pulled the gun from the truck, then he would skate.
he walked 100 yds home and back.
he is toast.

[alrighty]

Very sad , I think he will be charged with manslaughter when all is said and done.I hope he has a good lawyer and can get temporary insanity instead.IMO he should be given a medal and fully reimbursed for his truck and the bullet.

[km101]

The drunk got what he deserved. And the father deserves a medal, not prosecution!

There's an old Texas sayin' "There's more men that need killin', than horses that need stealin'" That drunk needed killing.

[john hayslip]

I live in Alvin, where the incident occurred. We have a large population of persons of
Hispanic origin. What I read in the newspaper locally did not say anything as to his immigration status. As far as I know the remains in jail with a bond set at (get this) $450,000.
I have not heard anything about a lawyer yet. I'll try to update this later if I hear anything new.

[Finster101]

I thought "He needed killin' your honor" was a legal plea in Texas. It definately applies here.

[hiram1]

He needed it so take a walk son.

[cbrick]

I think I can understand the fathers feelings, not a jury I would want to be on.

Rick

[41 mag fan]

The guy or kid killed one of my kids....I don't care if its 100yrd or 100 mi to the house....I would of killed him too.
I told a cop once while talking to him(friend of mine), if someone ever was to molest or hurt one of my kids, all that person would feel is maybe a slight sting and maybe hear a little bang, as the bullet took out part of their skull or went into their chest.
Friend agreed with me....eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

[BLTsandwedge]

....eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

41 mag fan, that's how my tribe rolls too........

Shabbat Shalom!

[bob208]

i say the driver shot him self then the gun was stolen and sold to a police buy back.

i have seen so much carnage caused but drunk drivers . some of them it is their third or fourth time. they should be shot on sight.

[archmaker]

I would say in Texas, that I would not want to be the Prosecuter. This may have been murder but to find 12 people willing to say yes to it, will just wind up in a hung jury, time after time after time. I know I could not say he was guilty, no matter what evidence was presented.

However this happened in Harris county, one of the few counties that voted for Obama, so the chances are not as good as say somewhere in the Panhandle.

[john hayslip]

I see where someone came up and said this happened in Harris county -- WRONG -- The incident occurred in Brazoria county, which is adjacent to Harris county to the southwest.

[MtGun44]

Let's hope the jury gets this right.

Bill

[Charley]

Can't find out exactly where it occured. If Harris County, he's going to get prosecuted for murder. If Brazoria County, more likely he will skate some. Rural juries tend to be a bit more flexible in thier interpertation of the law, IME.

[Highway41]

Check this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Frozone]

I think they charged him just right - murder. And if I was his lawyer I wouldn't accept a plea deal.

No jury is going to convict of murder. A 'not guilty' is likely.

[13Echo]

There are four kinds of homicide:

1) Accidental
2) Felonious
3) Justified
4) Praise worthy

I believe this is from Ambrose Bierce.

Jerry Liles

[RKJ]

If that had been my kids or Grand kids I would have done the same thing, it was 100 yards from his house(?). That wasn't premeditated that was pure agony and grief exploding. I feel bad for both families though.

[km101]

I think I can understand the fathers feelings, not a jury I would want to be on.

Rick


I would be glad to be on that jury. He would either be "Not Guilty", or it would be a hung jury.

[wgr]

i had a guy in prison on his 2/3 dui
. he gets out about a month later he hit a car head on. and killed 3 girls in my sons sen. high class.all hell oall he got was 71/2 years. indiana is really slack on drunk drivers

[gandydancer]

I would have done the same thing. and like Cactus Farmer ask. 20 years old. where did he get the booze? whoever? needs to be charged.

[leftiye]

He should be punished. A stiff fine of $1.00, payable by yearly installments of $0.01. This is not funny. I say it because of how little sympathy I have for that drunk. They never seem to learn.

They can't. Alcohol interferes with memory, even if you learned it, you forgot it before you could say you learned it.

[llwsgn]

Bad deal all around

True that.

[fatboy]

If i have to live with the loss of my kids by someone like this. i am willing do it in a jail cell for avenging there death rather than live with the anguish of doing nothing. everyone is responsibe for there actions regardless of what the liberals say. I say justice is served. Dont get me wrong, i have and still do drink my share of whisky, but i dont drive during or after doing so. because i am not willing to cause that kind of devistation on others.

[TXGunNut]

I think they charged him just right - murder. And if I was his lawyer I wouldn't accept a plea deal.

No jury is going to convict of murder. A 'not guilty' is likely.


Agreed, and I'd be proud to serve on the jury that sets him free. Unfortunately a trial is never a sure thing. OTOH this grieving father has done something I was never able to do as a peace officer, he undeniably prevented this drunk from driving drunk again and quite possibly taking another life. Deadly force is justified in the defense of another, it's a stretch but it's based on reality. People convicted of DWI continue to drive drunk, most I arrested had prior arrests, more than one was arrested again while awaiting trial! Neither man is a danger to society at this point, hope the jury sees it that way.

[NSP64]

His problem was going to get the gun.
I would have gotten out of the truck with a gun and emptied the clip in him(12 rds) and still been pulling the trigger on an empty gun when the POPO showed up.

I guy I work with (aircraft mechanic) just skated on his second DUI. 2 yrs supervised probation. I don't trust any of his work, I always double check.

It has to be genetic.
GF's son turned 21 last Nov. Three days later got a DUI. He told his mother he has been drinking since 16.(we dont keep alchohol in the house)
His biological father was killed when he was 1yo, his father was out drinking with his friends, they all were drunk and got into a single car accident that killed the 2 passengers( his father and a friend), But the driver survived. They were all 19yo.
The drivers dad was a sheriffs deputy and got him off.
Last we heard he is awaiting trial on his 4th dui and has never been to jail.

[DLCTEX]

To say going 100 yds. and back for the gun takes away "in the heat of the moment" is making light of the trama of what happened. How long does it take to get over the shock? Who can say?

[blackthorn]

If some drunken moron killed one of mine, I would be retribution mad for a lot longer than it takes to go a measily 100 yards for my gun! Good for that father! I hope he gets off scott free.

[ROGER4314]

I live not far from Alvin and know how the law works here. He saw his kids smashed to death by a drunk driver and had he choked the life out of the drunk right then, he had a good chance of survival. The fact that he left the scene, retrieved his weapon then shot the drunk is going to go very badly for him. While my heart goes out to him, Texas Prosecutors don't think that way. They know that if they set a precident by letting this guy skate, it will open up a flood gate of similar after crash, homicides.

Texas runs by the rule of law. We do not blame the gun or the car after a death. The person who commits the crime and anyone who was with the killer will go to prison. Unlike many Liberal havens, we hold law breakers accountable. I worked in the Texas Prison System (TDCJ) and can tell you that there is a rack in a prison unit just waiting for him.

They won't execute him, but the killer will do time.

Flash

[jmort]

^ This makes the most sense.

[Echo]

Being born & raised in Houston, I remember a certain lawyer named Percy Foreman, who NEVER lost a murder case. His defendants might serve time, but NEVER met Old Sparky. And a defense he used more than once was that the guy needed killin'. Just sayin'...

[Lonegun1894]

Not only would I love to be on that jury, I wouldn't have minded writing that report had I been the officer on the scene. I personally think he won't be convicted, at keast not of murder, and know he wouldn't be if I was on that jury. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets behind the wheel drunk is attempting to commit murder and is low enough to not care who they kill since we never know who is out on the roads with us. But I have lost friends to drunk drivers so I'm a little prejudiced.

[cbrick]

In post #19 I said that this was a jury I wouldn't want to be on and I truly wouldn't.

In other threads on this forum everyone ganged up on the police for going "over the line" and taking the law into their own hands. Here is a thread where everyone is saying it's perfectly fine to take the law into your own hands and there is no line. So which is it?

Doesn't matter how mad you are murder is still murder, it was in no way self defense or the defense of anyone else. It would be very difficult for me to cast a guilty vote which is why I would hate to be on that jury. Doesn't change the fact though that regardless of how much you may feel the drunk deserved it it was still murder. Assuming the details in the reporting in post #1 are correct would you sit on a jury and vote on reality of the facts and the law or your personal belief of "he deserved it". Would you vote not guilty based soley on the fact that you don't like drunks therefore it's not murder. What if you were on trial for murder for defending yourself and there was someone on the jury that doesn't like guns therefore it's NOT self defense . . . It's murder. Hhmmm . . . How about that personal belief?

I fully admit it would be an extemely tough choice to be forced to make and I'm not to sure I would want to look at myself in the mirror after I made that choice.

Rick

[starmac]

I have pretty much always believed in an eye for an eye, so would not have a problem sitting on the jury. There is no way anyone can say he was in a normal state of mind in this case.

[felix]

I lived in Houston for 12 years and know the feelings down there well, but at the same time I agree with Rick 100 percent now. In other words, damned if I do, damned if I don't agree with the law as implied and/or written by and amongst the Texans. I'd hate to see the need for cops on every street checking for licenses and drunks, but that would be required to make the law equitable throughout this board thread. If called for jury duty, I'd opt out by saying I might never agree with anything said by the judge while serving the case. ... felix

By the way, road rage in Houston is by FAR the worst I have ever seen, and that includes travelling in and around Boston where the most aggressive drivers in the US are located (1970's anyway). ... felix

[gwpercle]

Justice has been served. If I'm on the jury....he walks

[waynem34]

I agree with post #41 Roger4314.I would ve tried to snap that sob's neck.Good sharp pocket knife maybe.He wasnt thinking clearly.He looks plenty strong enough to end someone fairly quikly without gun.

[casterofboolits]

My vote would be "NOT GUILTY"!!!

[41 mag fan]

People convicted of DWI continue to drive drunk, most I arrested had prior arrests, more than one was arrested again while awaiting trial! Neither man is a danger to society at this point, hope the jury sees it that way.

That not true at all there. My FIL in 1982 was caught on a DUI. Went to jail overnight, has never touched a drink again. Boasts it's been 30 yrs since he had a beer, and will tell everyone straight out, the DUI scared him to death.
Most though after a few yrs will drink and drive again, but a few it scares so bad they never do it again.


In post #19 I said that this was a jury I wouldn't want to be on and I truly wouldn't.

In other threads on this forum everyone ganged up on the police for going "over the line" and taking the law into their own hands. Here is a thread where everyone is saying it's perfectly fine to take the law into your own hands and there is no line. So which is it?

Doesn't matter how mad you are murder is still murder, it was in no way self defense or the defense of anyone else. It would be very difficult for me to cast a guilty vote which is why I would hate to be on that jury. Doesn't change the fact though that regardless of how much you may feel the drunk deserved it it was still murder. Assuming the details in the reporting in post #1 are correct would you sit on a jury and vote on reality of the facts and the law or your personal belief of "he deserved it". Would you vote not guilty based soley on the fact that you don't like drunks therefore it's not murder. What if you were on trial for murder for defending yourself and there was someone on the jury that doesn't like guns therefore it's NOT self defense . . . It's murder. Hhmmm . . . How about that personal belief?

I fully admit it would be an extemely tough choice to be forced to make and I'm not to sure I would want to look at myself in the mirror after I made that choice.

Rick

Murder might be murder, but there's where the fine line for me is drawn, as it is for lots of people. Only thing is, some of the people wont avenge the death of their child, due to some morality issue that'll pop up in their minds.
I've lived my life and if I was to die this very second, well I've seen and been where most people only dream of or don't want to go.
I would have nothing else to lose, esp seeing my child dead, the sight of my dead child would haunt me to the point my life would be nothing anyway.
I would of killed the guy also, and if i went to prison, or to the chair, then I'd go knowing I avenged my kids death.

[cbrick]

So the replies are that there is no line to cross, there is no right or wrong, there is nothing but how you FEEL about an issue.

If the scenario of your being on trial for murder for a legitimate self-defense killing and someone on the jury hates guns so you did not kill him in self-defense . . . you murdered him. That is his FEELINGS and he will vote on the jury and try to convince other jurors to vote to convict you doesn't get you to think then try this scenario on for size.

Every single person on this board stands behind the Second Amendment for the protection of their gun rights. Every single leftist socialist in elected office is "using your very logic of the law does not matter, morality does not matter, right or wrong does not matter this is how I feel about guns", the Constitution does not matter, I hate guns and therefore I will vote to strip you of all guns.

And you are saying this is perfectly acceptable? After all, the only thing that does matter is how YOU FEEL.

Whether it suits you at the time or not there is such a thing as right and wrong, there is such a thing as morality and there is such a thing as the law. Think of the type of society you are condoning, I didn’t agree with what he did so I blew him away is now a legal defense? That would sure solve any possible population problems in a big hurry.

That's why I would truly hate to be on that jury, I would like to see the guy walk as much as any of you but the sad truth is that there is also such a thing as reality.

Rick

[Area Man]

I think part of what needs to be addressed is why the drunk was not in prison for an absurdly long sentance.

[shooterg]

The Law ? or Justice ?
I vote for Justice. It was served.

[DLCTEX]

I think the case of diminished capacity is a strong defense, I feel strongly that in that circumstance I would have been out of my mind for a while, how long I do not know.

[kweidner]

So the replies are that there is no line to cross, there is no right or wrong, there is nothing but how you FEEL about an issue.

If the scenario of your being on trial for murder for a legitimate self-defense killing and someone on the jury hates guns so you did not kill him in self-defense . . . you murdered him. That is his FEELINGS and he will vote on the jury and try to convince other jurors to vote to convict you doesn't get you to think then try this scenario on for size.

Every single person on this board stands behind the Second Amendment for the protection of their gun rights. Every single leftist socialist in elected office is "using your very logic of the law does not matter, morality does not matter, right or wrong does not matter this is how I feel about guns", the Constitution does not matter, I hate guns and therefore I will vote to strip you of all guns.

And you are saying this is perfectly acceptable? After all, the only thing that does matter is how YOU FEEL.

Whether it suits you at the time or not there is such a thing as right and wrong, there is such a thing as morality and there is such a thing as the law. Think of the type of society you are condoning, I didn’t agree with what he did so I blew him away is now a legal defense? That would sure solve any possible population problems in a big hurry.

That's why I would truly hate to be on that jury, I would like to see the guy walk as much as any of you but the sad truth is that there is also such a thing as reality.

Rick

Very nice point sir. I surely couldn't have written it that logically.

[Matt_G]

I agree with Cbrick on this one.
We have to have rule of law in this country. Otherwise we end with the rule du jour.
Whatever some power hungry jerk decides makes him/her feel warm and fuzzy at that instant in time.

Another way I look at this:
If I was that father, could I look God straight in the eye and say killing that drunk driver was just?
No way could I do that.
Same as if I was that drunk; I couldn't look him in the eye and say killing those boys was just.
What do you think He would have to say about this?

[41 mag fan]

Rick, i understand you logic and to a point I agree with it. Laws are made to be followed, society in general needs laws to follow. But the laws we have today are flawed and do not work. I.E. all the death row inmates or lifers sitting in prison for committing heinous crimes, sucking up the oxygen they don't deserve.
Before 4 yrs ago come May 5th I would of agreed with you totally.
But let me ask you this, have you ever buried a child?
We did. My nephew we raised for the 1st 8 mo he was alive.
At 1 yr 5 mo 1 day old he died under mysterious circumstances.
Needless police investigation is still open. If we hadn't given him back, he'd still be alive today.
But theres alot of things that went on with Scotts death, that slowly burned me and added to my guilt I carry.
It was bad enough, i flat out told my sister and her scrud ball b/f if i ever found out they killed him, I would seek justice on Scotts behalf.
I never would of thought like this, and I would of agreed and thought the same as you till this happened.
It will change a person.