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.

 

I agree, all those reason are legit and can happen.

I just dont know, I feel for the guy. Im glad the guy was a drunk driver in this case and not what you said above. Still dont make it Ok and Im afraid I would do the same in this case.

Im afraid I would do the same in this case.

I would hope, if I was ever in his situation, I would walk away, count to 10 and pray pray pray before I do anything. On the owner side, If I was the one who was DUI, I would have strong thoughts about ending my own life out of guilt. But wouldn't people say that would be an "easy way out"? The guy would have done time, which in my opinion would be a lot worse. But again, a very sad situation.

Slippery slope, especially in Texas.

I have no problem with the decision. That is why we have the jury system in the courtroom. As stated, none of us really know how the trial went and that evidence was or wasn't presented. You have to trust the system, whether we agree or not. Just a tragic situation for the guy and his family.

So they found blood that was consistent with the dad on the car of the victim. Dad's .357 was missing from its holster despite the attorney's claim that the dad never owned a gun. A .357 was the probable gun. Victims were at the scene of the accident.

 

Come on. Dad did it.

 

With that I can see a jury not charging because of no gunpowder residue and no gun. They all probably would bet it was him but you can't convict on a hunch.

So they found blood that was consistent with the dad on the car of the victim. Dad's .357 was missing from its holster despite the attorney's claim that the dad never owned a gun. A .357 was the probable gun. Victims were at the scene of the accident.

 

Come on. Dad did it.

 

With that I can see a jury not charging because of no gunpowder residue and no gun. They all probably would bet it was him but you can't convict on a hunch.

 

Also, it was questioned whether he had time to execute the slaying...using the 911 records. Where was the mom?