Jury Acquits Texas Father For Shooting Drunk Driver Who Killed His 2 Sons

[JokersWild24]

Texas Dad Acquitted in Shooting Death of Drunken Driver Who Killed 2 Sons | Fox News Insider

[TheDeuce]

I ain't mad at him...

[75center]

Should have convicted but can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing in his shoes.

[SportsGuy41017]

Should have convicted but can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing in his shoes.

Agreed! Although my heart goes out to people like him, you can't go and take the law into your own hands like this.

[Mitch Rapp]

I would need more information before saying that I might have voted the same way if I had been on the jury. At the very least, I would have argued in favor of a minimal or suspended sentence for the father. Had a drunk driver killed both of my sons and I had a gun handy, I cannot say for sure that I would not have done the same thing.

 

If the father was involved in the accident, which I assume was the case, he might have been suffering from physical shock, in addition to the overwhelming grief that he must have felt. A stiff sentence under the circumstances would have been unconscionable, IMO.

[Jumper_Dad]

I think the fact the gun was never found really helped the dad, that and a jury with some uncommon sense.

 

Kinda like in "A Time to Kill", could you really convict a dad that killed someone that raped his daughter.

[JokersWild24]

In Texas there are some pretty liberal interpretations of what I'll call "heat of the moment" situations like this. That probably helped his case as well. I don't know tons of specifics about the case, but it could also be one where he might have been overcharged and they weren't able to prove up what they were seeking. Criminal law isn't really my thing though, so don't quote me on that one or anything.

 

In general, I'm most similar to what Mitch has expressed in regards to this situation (which I admittedly don't know a lot about other than what's in that article). I also kind of question the veracity of all that's written in the article given that I think the wording is one which is purposefully done as such just to get hits and clicks.

[TheDeuce]

Kinda like in "A Time to Kill", could you really convict a dad that killed someone that raped his daughter.

 

I probably could, but if the circumstances were similar to that movie, I wouldn't.

[jericho]

Im glad he isnt in jail, he will suffer enough the rest of his life from what happened with his kids.

[SportsGuy41017]

Im glad he isnt in jail' date=' he will suffer enough the rest of his life from what happened with his kids.[/quote']

I agree he will suffer, but are we now saying that vigilante justice is ok? And if you are a victim, or people you know are victims, that is is ok to fire away?

 

How did this guy know that the driver was DUI? He more than likely didn't know at the time.

 

What if it would have been the guy fell asleep at the wheel? Lost control of the car somehow? What if their was a defect with the car that made the driver lose control? There is a thing in this country of innocent until proven guilty.

 

I understand the guy and his lose, not sure what I would have done but pray I would be able to let the courts to decide. If not, I would be prepared to spend the rest of my life in jail for killing a man without a trial.

[doomer]

I watch Castle every night.

 

I wonder where the mother was at the time?

[Bert]

I would need more information before saying that I might have voted the same way if I had been on the jury. At the very least, I would have argued in favor of a minimal or suspended sentence for the father. Had a drunk driver killed both of my sons and I had a gun handy, I cannot say for sure that I would not have done the same thing.

 

If the father was involved in the accident, which I assume was the case, he might have been suffering from physical shock, in addition to the overwhelming grief that he must have felt. A stiff sentence under the circumstances would have been unconscionable, IMO.

 

I agree. This is one of those cases where I think justice mandates that you have to convict him but compassion mandates that the sentence be as light as legally possible.

[doomer]

I agree. This is one of those cases where I think justice mandates that you have to convict him but compassion mandates that the sentence be as light as legally possible.

 

My takeaway from the article is that there is not sufficient evidence to commit regardless of the circumstances. There appear to be a number of conflicts in circumstances that create a reasonable doubt.

 

Of course, maybe the prosecution just wasn't that motivated.

[SportsGuy41017]

Im glad he isnt in jail' date=' he will suffer enough the rest of his life from what happened with his kids.[/quote']

 

Are you not the same person who stated the thread about a police dog that was left in a hot car that died? And complaining that the charges should have been greater? Bit didn't that officer suffer enough? He lost his dog due to his mistake.

 

But, I do agree with you, on that other thread. To me there is no excuse for leaving a pet or child in a hot car, period! If you do, and a life is lost, you should be thrown in jail, I don't care how much people claim "they suffered enough", as NO THEY DID NOT! The one who died is the one who suffered.

 

But again, as I said before, I do not agree with vigilante justice.

[kypride]

I would have voted not guilty as a juror and if I was the judge I would give him the absolute minimum if they found him guilty.