Father Accused of Murdering Drunk Driver Who Killed Kids

[celtic_crippler]

Wow...

Story/Video: http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-dad-accused-murdering-drunk-driver-killed-kids/story?id=18477907

A Texas father, who watched a drunk driver strike and kill his two young sons, has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting the driver in the head moments after the accident.

My first reaction was, "So?"

Manslaughter maybe, but murder? I don't think a jury would convict him of murder... perhaps that's why the severe charge?

 

[Makalakumu]

The boys, both fans of the Houston Texans, were buried last month. Many of the mourners at their funeral wore Texans jerseys.
But the family of the slain driver believes justice must be done.
"It was an accident. He didn't purposely do that,' Janie Tellez told KTRK. "Whoever did it is getting away with murdering my nephew. He deserves justice."

An accident? Um...no.

Did the driver deserve death? I put myself in the position of the man who lost his boys and I don't know what I'd do. If I came to the door and he reeked of whiskey, I might have dragged him out and killed him with my bare hands...

 

[celtic_crippler]

An accident? Um...no.

Did the driver deserve death? I put myself in the position of the man who lost his boys and I don't know what I'd do. If I came to the door and he reeked of whiskey, I might have dragged him out and killed him with my bare hands...

I think that's most people's initial thought.

And he saw it happen! Can you imagine?

I think I can safely say with 100% certainty that I would not be rational under similar circumstances. Who would?

 

[ballen0351]

I can't imagine seeing both my sons like that. I'd lose it.

 

[Tez3]

In France they have a good law, it's that of the 'crime of passion', it doesn't refer as many believe to 'lovers' but to the act of committing something that would normally be a crime if one was in one's right mind such as this case when one has been driven to do something one would never do normally and it's done without premeditation. If ever there was a crime of passion it is this.

 

[Flying Crane]

since the father shot the driver "moments" after the accident, was the father in any position to know that the driver was in fact drunk, and it was not a true accident? After all, it was late at night (dark) and they were in the road pushing their disabled truck. It's certainly not inconceivable that they might get hit by another driver, in the form of a true accident.

The story also states that according to witnesses, the father walked into his house to get his gun, then came back and shot the driver.

Based on the news story, it sounds to me like the father made a deliberate decision.

 

[ballen0351]

since the father shot the driver "moments" after the accident, was the father in any position to know that the driver was in fact drunk, and it was not a true accident? After all, it was late at night (dark) and they were in the road pushing their disabled truck. It's certainly not inconceivable that they might get hit by another driver, in the form of a true accident.

The story also states that according to witnesses, the father walked into his house to get his gun, then came back and shot the driver.

Based on the news story, it sounds to me like the father made a deliberate decision.

Is there anyone saying it wasn't deliberate?

 

[Flying Crane]

Is there anyone saying it wasn't deliberate?

well there was the comment about the crime of passion (in France), where he may not have been in a stable frame of mind, so I dunno if anyone was suggesting a similar situation in this particular case.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see the shooting as justifiable. the father made a deliberate decision to shoot the driver, when he should (and could) have held off for law enforcement to handle it. well, now he faces murder charges.

 

[celtic_crippler]

...and just how much time is necessary to get over seeing your two young children run down in the street? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

They'll never get a conviction on murder. Manslaughter, maybe... but not murder. I actually think that's why they charged him with it.

 

[Flying Crane]

...and just how much time is necessary to get over seeing your two young children run down in the street? 5 minutes? 10 minutes?

They'll never get a conviction on murder. Manslaughter, maybe... but not murder. I actually think that's why they charged him with it.

tragedies happen all the time and I'm not trying to minimize that. But it doesn't automatically give one the right to put a bullet in someone's head.

as to whether or not they'll get a conviction, well that remains to be seen.

 

[Makalakumu]

tragedies happen all the time and I'm not trying to minimize that. But it doesn't automatically give one the right to put a bullet in someone's head.

as to whether or not they'll get a conviction, well that remains to be seen.

Well, this is Texas, so I think the State might go easy. :shotgun:

That said, I understand where you are coming from. In general, there are a lot of circumstances involved in a situation like these and we don't want people charging off assuming the worst and blowing the brains out of another human being.

That said, consider the fact that nationwide, 65% of murder cases are never solved. In some cities, this number rises to 90%. If we're talking about property crimes, 90% are never solved. So, I really think that challenges the idea that the State can provide any justice to it's citizens. I know we're all taught to rely on the men in blue to get the bad guys and put them in cages, but the actual success rates for this are so abysmally low, even for the most serious crimes like murder, it's safer to assume that there will be no justice.

So, a guy is drunk as hell and essentially murders your family with a vehicle. There's a good chance he's just going to drive off and never be seen again. If he is arrested, there's a good chance it'll be for some plea bargain and he might do some time, only to get out in a decade or so. Your babies are gone forever though and in that quick angry moment the stats calculate into some formation where revenge is the result of insane logic.

I don't know what the solution to any of this is. I do know that it's obvious to me that the State fails at one of it's assumed primary functions. I also know that we are indoctrinated not to look at the facts and worship this poorly functioning system. It's assumed that this is the only way people are going to get justice...well it's not.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, this is Texas, so I think the State might go easy. :shotgun:

That said, I understand where you are coming from. In general, there are a lot of circumstances involved in a situation like these and we don't want people charging off assuming the worst and blowing the brains out of another human being.

That said, consider the fact that nationwide, 65% of murder cases are never solved. In some cities, this number rises to 90%. If we're talking about property crimes, 90% are never solved. So, I really think that challenges the idea that the State can provide any justice to it's citizens. I know we're all taught to rely on the men in blue to get the bad guys and put them in cages, but the actual success rates for this are so abysmally low, even for the most serious crimes like murder, it's safer to assume that there will be no justice.

So, a guy is drunk as hell and essentially murders your family with a vehicle. There's a good chance he's just going to drive off and never be seen again. If he is arrested, there's a good chance it'll be for some plea bargain and he might do some time, only to get out in a decade or so. Your babies are gone forever though and in that quick angry moment the stats calculate into some formation where revenge is the result of insane logic.

I don't know what the solution to any of this is. I do know that it's obvious to me that the State fails at one of it's assumed primary functions. I also know that we are indoctrinated not to look at the facts and worship this poorly functioning system. It's assumed that this is the only way people are going to get justice...well it's not.

I don't see the relevance in most of what you are saying here.

Firstly, having read the news story, there is nothing stating that the father even knew the driver was drunk. For all he knew, it was a pure accident. The story stated that it was "determined" the driver was drunk, and I can only assume that determination was made by the coroner. There's a lot of info missing in that story, but it simply says nothing about whether the father knew he was drunk, and there's no way to know, from the info on the story, if the father had any way of even making that determination. Did the guy step out of the car with an open bottle of Jack in his hand, glug glug glugging away? No mention. For all we know, he may not have been obviously drunk at all, much less "drunk as hell" as you put it. So from the father's point of view, if he was unable to recognize the inebriation of the driver, he just shot a guy who had a tragic car accident. While the inebriation of the driver may well have contributed to the accident, it likely did not contribute to the father's reaction, because without further information we cannot assume the father knew he was drunk.

Secondly, a witness stated that the father "walked" into the house and returned with his gun, and shot the driver. So the driver stuck around long enough for the father to make that walk, and didn't just speed off into the night and eternal obscurity.

Thirdly, as was stated in the story, it was late at night and the father and his sons were pushing their disabled pickup truck home. So they were out in the street after dark, pushing the truck. It doesn't mention if they had lights on so they would be visible to other motorists, it doesn't say if they were on a blind curve, it doesn't say how busy the road was at that time of night. But it's entirely possible that the act of being in the road late at night could have contributed as much to the tragedy as the inebriation of the driver. Perhaps after shooting the driver, the father should have recognized his own at-fault and put a bullet in his own head as well. Obviously I'm being facetious, but seriously, there's so much info missing here that we who are Sunday-morning quarterbacking this issue will never know, that to consider shooting the driver on the spot was a reasonable reaction, is just way out there.

Consider if a similar tragedy had happened on the freeway, in broad daylight. Suppose a traffic accident caused the death of the children, and the father stepped out of his car and shot the other driver. No reasonable person would consider that an acceptable response. That would be viewed as a clear case of road-rage, regardless of how tragic the events were. Because it was an accident, and our society does not condone simply shooting the other party when an accident happens.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't see the relevance in most of what you are saying here.

First of all, I agree, we certainly don't know all of the information to examine what would be right and what would be wrong. That said, as a general principle, I think we can give tentative thumbs up or thumbs down on this action AND be willing to change our mind should more information come to light.

Secondly, I think the subject of whether or not the State can actually deliver justice is not only related to the topic, it's imperative to understand. Most people assume that this is one of the primary functions of the State, but they don't understand how ineffective the State actually is in performing it. If the assumption that the State can deliver justice is undermined, it becomes a lot easier to seek "justice" on the spot. Perhaps it makes more sense to walk back to your house and grab a gun?

Personally, I don't think killing a person equates to justice, so I rationally couldn't defend actions like this. However, on a personal emotive level, being a father with two children who I love, if something similar happened to me and it's obvious that they dude is drunk as hell, I'd probably lose my mind. On the other hand, I might not even care about that guy and simply be hyperfocused on performing first aid, even if it was a "lost cause". Either way, there's a good possibility that my rational mind might not be functioning well.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Oh, he's just so hardcore disciplined that not even a game of baby baseball would stir his ire. He doesn't have blood in his veins... he has liquid oxygen. LOL

 

[ballen0351]

It takes me seconds to decide if someone is drunk its not hard.
I dont think anyone's claiming it was justified where just saying we would understand. If I were on a jury and the driver was drunk I wouldn't convict him of murder. I'd do manslaughter and hope he gets 2 to 3 years Max.

 

[arnisador]

Give him a 10 year sentence. Suspend it to one year. Makes the point about vigilante justice without being cruel. If it turns out the "alleged" criminal really wasn't clearly guilty, though, give him the whole time.

 

[ballen0351]

Give him a 10 year sentence. Suspend it to one year. Makes the point about vigilante justice without being cruel. If it turns out the "alleged" criminal really wasn't clearly guilty, though, give him the whole time.

Right I don't think anyone here condones being vigilante or at least I don't. I do however see why it happened. If I just saw what that man saw I have no idea what I'd do but yes murder would cross my mind. Now if the guy wasnt drunk id expect him to do more time. But i def can see why this happend , im supprised it does not happen more especially when most duis that result in death get minimal jail time. A cop from a neighboring jurisdiction was struck and killed by a drunk driver the guy did just under 3 years in jail and was out. I've locked the guy up since then he's a crack head now. He jokes about it when you lock him up saying he's glad he made pig road kill and stuff like that.

 

[ballen0351]

Right after I posted the above I read this:

A former "Melrose Place" actress who was drunk when her SUV plowed into a car and killed a woman was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison, infuriating the victim's relatives, who had hoped for the 10-year maximum.

"What a travesty!" the victim's husband, Fred Seeman, yelled after the sentence was read.

"This is not justice," the victim's 26-year-old son, Ford Seeman, told the judge before he stormed out of the courtroom.

A jury in November convicted Amy Locane-Bovenizer of vehicular homicide in the 2010 death of 60-year-old Helene Seeman in Montgomery Township.

Locane-Bovenizer will be eligible for parole after 2 1/2 years and will be credited the 81 days she has already served. She also had her license suspended for five years and will be on probation for three years after her release. She must pay several thousand dollars in fines.

 

[oftheherd1]

In France they have a good law, it's that of the 'crime of passion', it doesn't refer as many believe to 'lovers' but to the act of committing something that would normally be a crime if one was in one's right mind such as this case when one has been driven to do something one would never do normally and it's done without premeditation. If ever there was a crime of passion it is this.

In the USA we have such a law as well; manslaughter. Apparently the UK does too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter, unless the French law you are talking about absolves the perpetrator of all responsibility. I don't believe the currently mentioned act should be excused. I absolutely understand the father's mental state could be caused by the shock of such a terrible loss, but he still took a life that was not in protection of anyone at that point.

It takes me seconds to decide if someone is drunk its not hard.
I dont think anyone's claiming it was justified where just saying we would understand. If I were on a jury and the driver was drunk I wouldn't convict him of murder. I'd do manslaughter and hope he gets 2 to 3 years Max.

I have often heard that in Texas, such things are often looked at differently than in most jurisdictions. I have not experience or facts to say that is so, just what others have often related. Other than that, I totally agree with your post.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Right I don't think anyone here condones being vigilante or at least I don't. I do however see why it happened. If I just saw what that man saw I have no idea what I'd do but yes murder would cross my mind. Now if the guy wasnt drunk id expect him to do more time. But i def can see why this happend , im supprised it does not happen more especially when most duis that result in death get minimal jail time. A cop from a neighboring jurisdiction was struck and killed by a drunk driver the guy did just under 3 years in jail and was out. I've locked the guy up since then he's a crack head now. He jokes about it when you lock him up saying he's glad he made pig road kill and stuff like that.

Man, our priorities are totally screwed in this country.

I can't understand why there's not more of a push for things like tougher sentencing for DUI's, especially when a death occurs. Or why there's not tougher sentencing for sex offenders?

Fail to pay your taxes, though? You're going away for a long, long, time... WTF?