Dad Shot Drunk Driver Who Killed His Sons, found not Guilty

[Kampioen]

Not so much "failure of investigation" as failure of the human element of investigation i.e investigators sympathising with the suspect. Then convincing a jury of peers who all have families, likely children of their own to pass a not guilty verdict in a case like this is not exactly rocket science. There might even have been some sympathising from the prosecutors camp, which will be especially obvious if they do not appeal this verdict. Like I said, a travesty of justice.

 

Well that sounds very plausible. I don't know if that really happened but it seems likely.

[Vehicles]

Setting him in prison isn't exactly helping either. Taxpayers will pay every thing for that man. He'll get 3 meals a day, free dental care, you name it, he'll have it. It's best that he just rot in the f*cking ground.

But sitting in a dark cell for so years is not suffering?What gives him the right to kill someone?Out of a lot of drunken hit and run cases how many times you seen the family member of the deceased grab a gun and kill the guilty one?

[Kampioen]

I can't believe the fools that are saying they'd be rational after their two and only f*cking sons died. I couldn't let some dumbass irresponsible motherf*cker do that to my children and get away with it. He'd have to go. There is no bringing those kids back after something like that. They're gone forever. Imagine if it happened to your parents or siblings. Or to your own children especially. So stop saying sh*t like you're holier than thou.

 

You act as though every family of homicide victims go out and murder in revenge. The vast majority don't.

[Clem Fandango]

We have justices systems for a reason, and this isn't the reason.

At any rate, a combination of reasonable doubt and jury sympathy seems like an objectively good reason to let someone go. Justice was served, I think.

[Kampioen]

 

We have justices systems for a reason, and this isn't the reason.

At any rate, a combination of reasonable doubt and jury sympathy seems like an objectively good reason to let someone go. Justice was served, I think.

 

 

Jury sympathy is a terrible reason.

[Clem Fandango]

Setting him in prison isn't exactly helping either. Taxpayers will pay every thing for that man. He'll get 3 meals a day, free dental care, you name it, he'll have it. It's best that he just rot in the f*cking ground.

Except, as sivis already outlined, we can't just kill anyone whose negligence makes our stomachs turn. I mean, where do we draw the line? Lazy employees who cause accidents? People whose economic actions have social consequences?

 

He's guilty of murder, that much is clear. But it's the jury's prerogative and they wanted to let him go.

Jury sympathy is a terrible reason.

I don't think so. I think one of the benefits of having juries is that they can use their discretion; the law shouldn't be a robotic process, at least in my opinion.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Melchior

[Kampioen]

 

Setting him in prison isn't exactly helping either. Taxpayers will pay every thing for that man. He'll get 3 meals a day, free dental care, you name it, he'll have it. It's best that he just rot in the f*cking ground.

Except, as sivis already outlined, we can't just kill anyone whose negligence makes our stomachs turn. I mean, where do we draw the line? Lazy employees who cause accidents? People whose economic actions have social consequences?

 

He's guilty of murder, that much is clear. But it's the jury's prerogative and they wanted to let him go.

Jury sympathy is a terrible reason.

I don't think so. I think one of the benefits of having juries is that they can use their discretion; the law shouldn't be a robotic process, at least in my opinion.

 

 

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots? If anybody gets to use discretion, it should be someone who has extensively studied law and ethics, i.e. the judge.

Edited August 29, 2014 by CenMan

[GTA_stu]

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots? If anybody gets to use discretion, it should be someone who has extensively studied law and ethics, i.e. the judge.

 

Peers are far better than bullsh*t merchants with "qualifications" or "relevant knowledge". You need an amateur schmuck to judge you, not somebody who is actually trained extensively to do so and has years of experience. How else are you gonna get away with crimes if you're poor? The rich have their bribes and the poor have their peers. It levels the playing field. Except if you're not white, then it works against you, yet again. Sawwwryyy.

Edited August 29, 2014 by stu

[Kampioen]

 

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots? If anybody gets to use discretion, it should be someone who has extensively studied law and ethics, i.e. the judge.

 

Peers are far better than bullsh*t merchants with "qualifications" or "relevant knowledge". You need an amateur schmuck to judge you, not somebody who is actually trained extensively to do so and has years of experience. How else are you gonna get away with crimes if you're poor? The rich have their bribes and the poor have their peers. It levels the playing field. Except if you're not white, then it works against you, yet again. Sawwwryyy.

 

 

Well I'm white and poor so I'm off to the US to rob a bank. I'll tell a sad story in court about how I needed cancer treatment for my 7 children from living next to a nuclear power plant, and a place to live after KFC demolished my house to build a chicken torture centre. One of their secret spices is adrenaline. Wanna join me? We'll split it 50/50.

[GTA_stu]

You got yourself a deal you smooth talking son of a gun.

[a20characterusername]

 

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots? If anybody gets to use discretion, it should be someone who has extensively studied law and ethics, i.e. the judge.

Have you ever sat on a jury? They screen people for that kind of stuff, not that it's 100% effective, but they don't just let anyone be jurors. As for your second point, That's what defenders and prosecutors are for-- to use their extensive knowledge of law and ethics to sway a jury. Our system is such that the people have the final say in a verdict rather than the courts, because such crimes have an impact on society at large. As such, it's up to us as people to determine how that should reflect on our justice system rather than the courts, at least in this context.

[Clem Fandango]

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots?

That's what judges and appeals are for.

[Kampioen]

 

 

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots? If anybody gets to use discretion, it should be someone who has extensively studied law and ethics, i.e. the judge.

Have you ever sat on a jury? They screen people for that kind of stuff, not that it's 100% effective, but they don't just let anyone be jurors. As for your second point, That's what defenders and prosecutors are for-- to use their extensive knowledge of law and ethics to sway a jury. Our system is such that the people have the final say in a verdict rather than the courts, because such crimes have an impact on society at large. As such, it's up to us as people to determine how that should reflect on our justice system rather than the courts, at least in this context.

 

 

No we don't have juries here. They can't possibly screen people for this thoroughly enough. Bigotry often works on a subconscious level as well. People who consider themselves for instance not racist, not homophobic or not sexist often still are to some degree. There are many studies that show this. With legal professionals, you have years during their education to develop a more equal attitude towards people. And a small group of people on a jury is not representative of what "the people" want. What they want is supposed to be implemented regardless of who happens to be on a jury. What makes ordinary citizens more capable of making important legal decisions than a very well educated judge?

 

 

So what if you happen to get a jury full of racists or other kinds of bigots?

That's what judges and appeals are for.

 

 

The guy above you said the jury has the final say. Which is it? And aren't appeals very expensive?

[Clem Fandango]

Juries have the final say with a non-guilty verdict, but a guilty verdict can be over turned.

[Kampioen]

Alright well that makes some sense to me. I still don't think ordinary citizens have the legal credibility to make such important legal decisions though.

[im_stoned]

 

Lay off the bud for a little while.

I think he has more issues than bud.

 

Let me kill the person you love the most in this world and we'll see if you're still a smiling politically correct fa**ot coward !

 

The fact you think it's ok to drive drunk and then kill two children in the process shows how f*cked in the head you both are.

 

This is why drink drivers exist in the first place this mommy attitude of '' if someone f*cks up forgive them and don't be mad about it''

 

Seriously................. WHAT THE f*ck IS WRONG WITH YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't wish death, pain, or suffering on anybody but if someone's kids have to die at the hands of a drunk driver I hope to god it's both the people I quoted kids they clearly are fine with it and have no doubts what so ever that the courts will do the right thing !

Edited August 30, 2014 by im_stoned

[GunWrath]

That's a bit harsh dude..

[Rebel]

Justice has prevailed, kind of.

[Kampioen]

 

 

Lay off the bud for a little while.

I think he has more issues than bud.

 

Let me kill the person you love the most in this world and we'll see if you're still a smiling politically correct fa**ot coward !

 

The fact you think it's ok to drive drunk and then kill two children in the process shows how f*cked in the head you both are.

 

This is why drink drivers exist in the first place this mommy attitude of '' if someone f*cks up forgive them and don't be mad about it''

 

Seriously................. WHAT THE f*ck IS WRONG WITH YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't wish death, pain, or suffering on anybody but if someone's kids have to die at the hands of a drunk driver I hope to god it's both the people I quoted kids they clearly are fine with it and have no doubts what so ever that the courts will do the right thing !

 

 

If I'm not mistaken drunk driving actually carries quite a heavy punishment in the US. I really don't think people or the judicial system forgive drunk drivers easily. Also, the article didn't say anything about what punishment the drunk driver will face.

 

And the accustation that they think it's "ok to drive drunk and then kill two children in the process" is completely unfair and offensive.

[GunWrath]

The drunkard more than likely would have been charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter, DUI, reckless driving and no telling what other small traffic charges he may have broken.. improper lane usage, sh*t like that.

[trip]

DUI homicide by vehicle is pretty serious and the drunk driver would have done serious time. I would have liked to see him suffer and pay for his crime(s). Death is too easy of a payment in some cases.

 

I also worry when we start to accept vigilante justice too easily. People will start to get the impression that they can directly involve themselves when they "believe" something to be wrong.

[milkmansun]

With all the arguments aside, there was no proper evidence.

 

My question is if proper evidence surfaced, would this same verdict given? I doubt it.

[make total destroy]

 

 

Lay off the bud for a little while.

I think he has more issues than bud.

 

Let me kill the person you love the most in this world and we'll see if you're still a smiling politically correct fa**ot coward !

 

The fact you think it's ok to drive drunk and then kill two children in the process shows how f*cked in the head you both are.

 

This is why drink drivers exist in the first place this mommy attitude of '' if someone f*cks up forgive them and don't be mad about it''

 

Seriously................. WHAT THE f*ck IS WRONG WITH YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't wish death, pain, or suffering on anybody but if someone's kids have to die at the hands of a drunk driver I hope to god it's both the people I quoted kids they clearly are fine with it and have no doubts what so ever that the courts will do the right thing !

 

Way to prove Vlynor's point.

[Aby]

Drunk driver probably had a family. Regardless of what they did, I'm sure anyone would be upset if a family member was murdered by someone else, regardless of the circumstances. I understand how the father felt, but murder was definitely not the answer.

[Zook]

To people who support the murder of the drunk-driver. Is it okay for the family of the drunk driver to kill the guy who just murdered their son/brother/father?

[make total destroy]

"And they kill two friends, and they kill two friends, and so on, and so on, and so on.."

[Frank Brown]

I'm apparently a fagg*t coward.

[make total destroy]

but you're our fa**ot coward

[I cucked Alex Jones]

We can be fa**ot cowards together Vlynor.

[Absurdity]

Seems fair that the father gets to decide the fate of the man who ended the lives of his sons rather than the lawyer or state. Yip.

 

 

 

Rusty Balls likes this

Edited September 12, 2014 by Rusty Balls