Houston-area man, who shot a drunk driver for killing his sons, indicted for murder (legally, safe)

[texas7]

Here is my question - just a scenario - just what if the the guy who hit the kids had not been drunk, what if the kids were pushing a car on a dark road and no emergency flashers? Would people still feel he was justified? He would still have the same range of emotions after losing his children.

[chris_ut]

We should leave it up to the jury who can hear all the facts of the case. Anyone who is a parent can understand why the guy did what he did. Of course the other guy was a parent as well.

[Komeht]

The way I see it, he did the drunk driver a favor - it was a mercy kill. How can you live knowing you killed a couple of kids like that?

[glorplaxy]

He will at least be sentenced the minimum punishment for murder because he admitted guilt of the action. Jury or not, the law sees that he has comitted a premeditated murder and he cannot escape a sentencing for it. Sure, they can go easy on him, but legally the court cannot allow him to escape all charges.

He will get the minimum, which is a few years in prison.

[studiobtm]

There are medical conditions that can make a person act drunk and will impair motor skills. So - that is why we have trials. But - if it was my kids and the bastard smelled of booze...

If everyone received 50 strokes with a cane for the first DUI and death for the second - we wouldn't have a drunk driving problem. But we are 'compassionate'. So we slaughter, burn and maim 50 thousand innocents a year instead of executing a handful who engage in depraved indifference. Aren't we civilized.

[glorplaxy]

Originally Posted by studiobtm

There are medical conditions that can make a person act drunk and will impair motor skills. So - that is why we have trials. But - if it was my kids and the bastard smelled of booze...

If everyone received 50 strokes with a cane for the first DUI and death for the second - we wouldn't have a drunk driving problem. But we are 'compassionate'. So we slaughter, burn and maim 50 thousand innocents a year instead of executing a handful who engage in depraved indifference. Aren't we civilized.

You could move somewhere like China, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan when it was ruled by Taliban...the only places where such laws exist.

Iran is probably the best example of a place with ideals like yours.

Would you prefer it?

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by glorplaxy

He will at least be sentenced the minimum punishment for murder because he admitted guilt of the action. Jury or not, the law sees that he has comitted a premeditated murder and he cannot escape a sentencing for it. Sure, they can go easy on him, but legally the court cannot allow him to escape all charges.

He will get the minimum, which is a few years in prison.

Oh, he pleaded guilty in court? I didn't know that. When did that happen? Because the only way he can be sentenced is to be found guilty in court. That means he either pleads guilty IN COURT (not to the media or police or friends) or the jury finds him guilty. And I'm telling ya no jury is gonna find this man guilty of MURDER. Maybe manslaughter. Maybe.

[LostInHouston]

Crime of passion or not, he would still be charged with murder. Crime of passion is a type of temporary insanity defense and not a type of criminal charge.

[jeremy2788]

But if they have evidence that he admitted to guilt and the jury heard such evidence and didn't find him guilty, they would be going against their civic duty, would they not?

[oceangaia]

Saying you did it is not the same as saying you weren't justified in doing it. And people "admit" to things all the time, then get a lawyer, plea not guilty, and say the admission was under duress or inadmissible.