So a guy is pushing his truck down the road with his family inside. A drunk driver rams into the truck killing his two sons, 11 and 12 years old.  Dad runs home, gets his gun and kills the drunk driver. Dad is being charged with murder.  Is that the right charge?

Whole story is here.

I don't know the degrees of severity assigned with the various killing offenses (murder vs. manslaughter, etc.) but I think some charge is appropriate. Mitigating circumstances should be considered in sentencing.

What I don't get is how he could bolt off after his gun when one of the boys was still alive, but later died at hospital,  and his wife and a daughter were still in the truck?  They would have been my first priority, not vengeance. Something seems really off here.

As for the drunk's family saying it was just an accident, I think that is just disgusting. How about admitting your kinsman was wrong, wrong, wrong? That can be done without condoning or excusing the Dad's response.

Views: 461

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Murder is generally defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." So yes, I'd say this was murder. I would also agree that there were mitigating circumstances so this would most likely be classified as voluntary manslaughter:

"Voluntary manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter." via Wikipedia.

+1 for the legal explication

Crim Law was a long time ago, but "murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought." "Aforethought" can be "in an instant." [I don't make the rules; I just live within them. If you don't like them, write your state representatives.]

I haven't watched the video, but I think a murder CHARGE is appropriate here. The killing, as described here, was unlawful, and there's more than enough time for the malice requirement. The paterfamilias will be able to defend the charge on the grounds that he was in a state of shock and unable to know right from wrong, or was in a lesser state of agitation such that he knew right from wrong but his excitement clouded his judgment. That latter part is me paraphrasing the law; I can't remember the precise language whereby murder is reduced to a lesser form of homicide in circumstances such as this.

The classic example is the husband walking in on his wife and another man; the cases are split on whether shooting them in that moment is murder or a lesser degree of homicide. Here, because the shooter was physically involved in the disturbing incident, there's a possibility for PTSD, etc.

It will then be up to a jury, with testimony from mental health experts for the prosecution and defense, as well as the defendant himself, to try to figure out how much was in his head when he pulled the trigger.

Aside: On the driver, while we've quoted the classic definition of murder, legislatures have changed the definition when it comes to drunk driving. There are various ways of doing this, from increasing the sentence when the death was because of a drunk driving accident (vehicular manslaughter), to making a special murder definition for drunk driving deaths (something like, "Murder is [traditional definition] or causing the death of another human being through driving while intoxicated"). The practical consequences are the same - The driver goes to jail for a longer time than he would if the circumstances were mere negligence, or another kind of negligence. But the "is it murder?" answer is technically different.

If murder means anything, I'd have to say yes, it is.

Yeah, its murder.  Probably voluntary manslaughter.  Maybe reckless homicide.

Can't say I completely blame him, or that I wouldn't have done the same thing if I'd just watched a drunk driver kill my kids.  He'd probably be acquitted on "temporary insanity" if he'd had the gun with him.  The fact that he went home to get it will probably get him convicted with a fairly light sentence.

Don't feel a bit sorry for the guy that got shot.  He had it coming.


JB

Being as he left his wife, daughter, and mortally injured son at the scene; the case could still be made.  No one in their right frame of mind would have done that.

Would anyone be in the "right frame of mind" immediately after watching their children and spouse maimed by another's actions?

No they wouldn't be. So the question is, when tragedy strikes and our right frames of mind leave us and we go on auto-pilot, what dictates our behavior?  My theory is that the character we cultivate in calmer circumstances prevails. But what does that say about this person or the pharmacist from Todd's example below?  Were these guys just waiting for an excuse to go off on somebody? Couldn't the same be said of the nut-job Dorner?

I probably would have torn the guys head off with my bare hands .
Or alternately it would have been a scenario very similar to the one in the movie " in the bedroom " where your wife tells you to deal with it a few months down the track .

I agree that a case could be made for "temporary insanity". A few thoughts after watching the video:

First, the two boys were pushing the car along with their father. They weren't in the car. (The mother and younger siblings were in the car.) For me, that changed the scenario very quickly because if you noticed the condition of the totalled vehicles, you could easily imagine how horrific the death of those boys was. And it happened all in front of their father. Also, there were witnesses because they were close to home (about 100 yards away) which tells me that they were in a residential area. Even a half-crazed father might recognize in the heat of the moment that help would be coming for the survivors. His own neighbors might've been the witnesses. Also, the fact that they were so close to home already, lends the argument a hand because he didn't have that far a distance to go; it was a rash decision made in a moment of extreme crisis.

Margie what video are you referring to ?

RSS

Latest Activity

Daniel Rodriguez replied to Daniel's discussion Family in the group Gentlemen Atheists
"Don't attack them for their faith. It does nothing but make them more and more against you. I found that I would have days where I would want nothing more to burn a church down, bash down religion. But it's their life, and you have yours.…"
3 minutes ago
Daniel Rodriguez replied to Herb Munson's discussion Trusting in the Faithfulness of God in the group The Great Debate
"I follow a different path. That path brings me happiness. Why is your path better? Where is your god? Trouble not the world with such."
14 minutes ago
Daniel added a discussion to the group Gentlemen Atheists
Thumbnail

Family

Since losing the faith I find I have a difficult time maintaining close relationships with my parents and siblings who are strong believers. We don't fight, we all love each other, but there is a barrier that prevents anything too deep from happening. They are still faithfully waiting and expecting a prodigal son to return, so things seem to be a state of arrested development.I'd love to read about anybody's experience/success with bridging this divide in a healthy way, or of what potential…See More
15 minutes ago
Jacob Bauer replied to John Bravo's discussion I held out sex for love first....Why is it so hard to find a girl who's done the same?
"You're probably looking in the wrong place and at the wrong girls. Ignore these idiots who say you "shouldn't judge" or whatever. You laid our your criteria and you know exactly what you want in a woman. Find her and hope you…"
26 minutes ago
Jacob Bauer replied to Herb Munson's discussion Trusting in the Faithfulness of God in the group The Great Debate
""Silly" and "rigamarole" are hardly personal insults. Perhaps he does find your position silly. He was still respectful of the people supporting it, as far as I read. I think you're trying to find an excuse to avoid his…"
39 minutes ago
Rush replied to Rush's discussion Praying for Wife Material. Selfish Prayer? in the group Christian Men
"I agree that Faith without deeds is dead. God helps, but I have to work at it too. I don't think that praying out of money for your own ambitions that do not have God is good. For example I think its good to pray for success in Him through many…"
47 minutes ago
Nathanael replied to John Bravo's discussion I held out sex for love first....Why is it so hard to find a girl who's done the same?
"Reread what he wrote.  If he was interested in morals or values he'd be asking women about their beliefs and how they behave now, not whether they've ever had casual sex.  This is about his own psychological and sexual hang-ups,…"
1 hour ago
Daniel Rodriguez replied to John Bravo's discussion I held out sex for love first....Why is it so hard to find a girl who's done the same?
"Immoral from a point a view. Morals change. You shouldn't look down on someone because they don't fit your general moral code."
2 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service