Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And do you have any evidence that someone kills a drunk that he witnessed killing his two sons would kill again?
The government is doing nothing to keep drunk drivers off the streets. This man has suffered more than enough and he's not a danger to anyone else -- except maybe someone who chooses to kill his remaining child.
I think ignorance and stupidity are very dangerous things, and what we have going on here qualifies as a festival of stupidity .. an epidemic of mind numbing ignorance by some, and frightening levels of stupidity by others ... each feeding the other, building to a crescendo of shear madness.
Number one ... I cannot define how asinine it is to say "government is doing nothing to keep drunk drivers off the streets", when the reality is absolutely the opposite ... opposite to the extent of it now being a virtual "thought crime" ... with such harsh penalties that no longer require a victim, or even a traffic law violation to have occurred, in order to be pulled over and interrogated like an armed robbery suspect. And few things are as transparently immoral from a justice and liberty perspective than the philosophy of victimless crime and pre-crime punishment. Police have become literal bounty hunters ... roaming the streets and highways on the evening and night shifts, pulling people over for any, or no reason at all, based on the time of night .. in the hope that they might collect another notch on their belts for apprehending another dastardly public enemy who has committed the grave crime of having three beers at a social function. The absurdly low BAL levels which now qualifies as "intoxication" have evolved to what they are today for one purpose only .. and that is to increase the number of DWI convictions because they represent a massive $$$ bonanza for the system. It has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with revenue generation for the local authorities. They don't give a crap about your safety, and for those who haven't long ago figured that obvious fact out, they should just keep their mouths shut, because they have nothing of value to offer the conversation.
Secondly ... this festival of ignorance has naturally led to the mob-like mentality that has been so frighteningly demonstrated on this thread. This is a natural consequence of reaction without reasoning, similar to the maniacal insanity demonstrated by a person executing another person on the side of the road for a traffic accident, when the executioner may at least be partially, if not totally responsible for the accident to begin with. The fact that the provided information doesn't include enough of the necessary details to definitively assess who was at fault, seems to be of no concern whatsoever to the maniacal mob ... two kids died, and that is the only fact being considered .... which is nothing more than thoughtless emotional reaction without logical reasoning. The father with the two dead children may have an understandable excuse for reacting out of thoughtless emotion in witnessing the deaths of his two children, but none of you possess such an excuse. There is no excuse for you all ... and your behavior and response is appalling and disgusting, and totally uncivilized. To calmly cheer a deliberate execution style murder under the circumstances of this event makes the cheering persons even more psychologically unfit to be members of a civilized society than the executioner. Even if the person executed was totally at fault for the accident, it was still an accident, and roadside execution would still be cold blooded murder, because the tragic result of two children dead DOES NOT change the fact that it was an accident. But more importantly, what little is actually known about the circumstances, does offer reasonable doubt regarding fault.
Now, it has even been stated here by some, that a driver hitting something or someone is automatically at fault because they have the sole responsibility for controlling the vehicle they are driving. This shows an imbecilic lack of any form of reason or logic, and anyone who believes such nonsense should never be allowed out in public unsupervised. It takes very little common sense to understand the absurdity of such an idea. If you're driving along, and someone runs a red light and you t-bone them in the middle of the intersection, OF COURSE YOU ARE NOT AT FAULT ... the person running the red light is at fault, even though you hit them. Again, for those who cannot grasp this simple concept .. they need to keep their nitwit logic to themselves, because no one with a reasonable grasp of reality will find it hard to understand this.
Now let's consider RATIONAL ANALYSIS and FACTS:
In the US in 2009, according to census numbers, there were 5.5 Million traffic accidents which involved property damage, injury and fatalities (the total estimate is 10 Million, including minor accidents) .... that's roughly 15,000 serious accidents each day. Of that 5.5 Million ... 30,800 involved fatalities, which is .005 % fatality rate (1/2 of 1%) meaning that 99.5 % of accidents do not result in death. Of that total fatality rate, 1/3 of them are labeled as involving alcohol. And it's important to note that the statistic claims alcohol was involved, but there is no data on alcohol being RESPONSIBLE for the accidents. You could be sitting at a red light, and some careless person could smash into you ... and if you have been drinking, the accident will be classified as alcohol involved, though in such a circumstance, the person who had consumed alcohol OBVIOUSLY was not at fault, and therefore, neither was the alcohol. This data would argue against this notion that people are dying like flies at the hands of drunk drivers, when the reality is, that at a minimum, 2/3 of these deaths are due to some other cause besides an intoxicated driver ... carelessness, stupidity, distraction, mechanical failure ... whatever. They are just accidents, which happen to fallible human beings. But the overall point here is that only a tiny fraction of accidents result in fatalities ... one half of one percent ... so your chances of dying in a car accident are relatively remote .. and being killed by a drunk driver is even more remote, and many of those rare fatalities are a result of not wearing safety belts.
Now these facts are important when analyzing the facts of this accident being discussed here. The facts we know are ... 1) a man ran out of gas. 2) It was late at night, and he and his family were in his truck, disabled, on a rural ( outside the city, and likely very dark due to no street lights) road. 3) he chose to have his two young sons help him push this truck on this dark road, late at night. 4) another driver comes along, and hits them from the rear. 5) his two sons die as a result from being outside the truck pushing it when the other vehicle struck them from behind. 6) the driver of the vehicle that struck them did not die as a result of the impact of the collision, but from a bullet to his head by the owner of the struck vehicle being pushed. 7) the driver of the striking vehicle was determined by the police to have been intoxicated.
There are reasonable assumptions, speculations, and conclusions that can be drawn from these details:
1) Had the owner of the truck not run out of gas .. it would not have been in the middle of the road being pushed, making it an unsafe road hazard to other traffic, and consequently no chance of this accident occurring to begin with. Therefore, the truck owner is responsible for the initial cause of a chain of later events leading to the deaths of his children.
2) Had the owner of the truck exercised better judgement, and not had his two young boys outside this disabled vehicle pushing it late at night and in darkness, they would have been inside the vehicle and in a much safer situation. Since the driver of the colliding vehicle was not killed by the impact, nor were the mother and two sisters inside the truck seriously injured, it is safe to assume that had the two boys also been inside the truck (where they should have been), they would not have been killed or even seriously injured. Consequently, the second error was also made by the owner of the truck in attempting to push the disabled vehicle home, rather than simply abandoning the vehicle safely to the shoulder of the road, and dealing with it under much safer "daylight" conditions the next morning (the story says they were close enough to home to just walk home).
3) What cannot be determined based on known facts is whether or not the accident was avoidable by the other driver, with the impact due to a failure on his part for whatever reason. That the driver was determined by police to be intoxicated is not proof that his intoxication caused his inability to avoid the impact. It is absolutely reasonable to consider it possible that a person driving along late at night, on a dark rural road may not see a disabled vehicle in the middle of the road with enough reaction time to avoid the collision. The lighting conditions, the speed limit of that section of roadway, the geography of road layout, whether the disabled vehicle's running lights or emergency flashers were on, is not known, and are all factors in making such a determination. And even if the lights of the truck were turned on, we will never know whether the the two boys pushing the vehicle were standing in front of the taillights making them invisible to the oncoming driver, since all witnesses who could provide that testimony are dead. The fact is, it is very possible under such circumstances that no one might have been able to avoid that collision, which would lay the ENTIRE fault on the disabled truck owner.
In conclusion, we have the truck owner failing to keep his vehicle in an operational state, with the cause of being out of gas that much more of an obvious failure on his part, as compared to a mechanical breakdown that he could not have anticipated or prevented. Forget the lame idea that his gas gage magically failed and he was not aware of his low gas condition .. that's just not a reasonable assumption. Generally, running out of gas is pure carelessness and a lack of good sense or judgement, and of course, we now have ample evidence that this man doesn't possess good judgement, due to thinking it wise to allow his young sons to be in such a dangerous situation and push a vehicle on a dark road at night. The fact that he then chose to execute the other driver is also a slight clue of poor judgement.
So we have two major mistakes made on the part of the father of the dead boys which started the chain of events leading to this accident. It's simply carelessness to run out of gas, and negligent to create a significant safety hazard by attempting to push a truck home that ran out of gas, in the dark of night. Actually, it's quite STUPID, and people with common sense would at least acknowledge the danger of doing this, even if they didn't have enough sense decide the risk was not worth it. For those who do not possess the relatively tiny amount of sense to understand either of those things ... they're just too stupid to reason with, which is probably why they think it's OK for someone to execute people at accident scenes, when most of the blame for the accident rests with the executioner's other stupid decisions.
It's interesting that you are so determined to pass judgement when you do know what transpired or all of the facts. If you had read my posts on this thread, you woud have realized that I for one, think it is very possible and even likely that he knew the condition of the driver.
but does that give him the right to be Judge, Jury, and executioner especially since his own actions are what put his sons into harms way. He is as much at fault as the driver. Plus instead of helpign his sons, he walked back to his house, got his gun, and killed the man all without even lifting a hand to help his sons. Hope he ends up in jail for along time.
No it doesnt but he probably LOST CONTROL!!!!!!!!! (You would be surprised what you might do in a situation where you lost control and didnt know what you were doing)
Nobody can honestly judge this guy until they've experienced what he did.
None of you here even know how you'd react in that situation.
You may think you do, or pretend or whatever, but it ain't happening.
The guy witnessed probably the worst thing a parent would ever have to see.
This.. I find it disgusting that people are running on these 'if' and 'how wrong' scenario's.. but if your two children were hit/crushed and run over by a drunk driver right in front of you, you think you'd be sane for the time following?!? I know I'd lose my marbles after I called 911 and realized that one of them died, sh**- I don't think I'd have walked home and retrieved a weapon to serve justice... What would you do? Sit back and say, "Oh, the government will fix this..."
...sickening -- drunk driver killed some guys kids for being stupid as he11 and wreckless- justice was served. The End.
For that dad- my prayers are with him... he will never be normal again.
No it doesnt but he probably LOST CONTROL!!!!!!!!! (You would be surprised what you might do in a situation where you lost control and didnt know what you were doing)
Perhaps, but there are mitigating circumstances for voluntary manslaughter. People react differently when in shock, and not necessarily rationally. That does not excuse unlawfully killing someone, but under the circumstances voluntary manslaughter seems more applicable than murder.
And it's important to note that the statistic claims alcohol was involved, but there is no data on alcohol being RESPONSIBLE for the accidents. You could be sitting at a red light, and some careless person could smash into you ... and if you have been drinking, the accident will be classified as alcohol involved, though in such a circumstance, the person who had consumed alcohol OBVIOUSLY was not at fault, and therefore, neither was the alcohol.
They use this same tactic to inflate the stats on people who supposedly die from smoking.
Used to push an agenda......to severely restrict smoking, to justify outrageous taxes on tobacco, to raise insurance rates for smokers.....to socially engineer smoking out of existence.
Don't be fooled.....that is the agenda here too.....to eventually severely restrict alcohol consumtion and justify raising taxes on alcohol......to socially engineer drinking alocohol out of existence.
Has anyone seen the latest stat? That drinking as little as 1 and 1/2 alcoholic beverages a day can cause cancer? Hmmm....... Sound familiar?
The groundwork is being put in place to vilify alcohol use just as has been done with tobacco use....to socially engineer them both out of existence.....mark my words.....the writing is on the wall.
Perhaps, but there are mitigating circumstances for voluntary manslaughter. People react differently when in shock, and not necessarily rationally. That does not excuse unlawfully killing someone, but under the circumstances voluntary manslaughter seems more applicable than murder.
I am not so sure about that.
I could see the prosecution successfully arguing premeditated murder.
After all, the father didn't just pull the gun out of his waistband in the heat of the moment.....he had the wherewithal to run all the way home, find his gun, perhaps even load it, run all the way back and shoot the driver.
That is intent, no matter how you spin it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-- drunk driver killed some guys kids for being stupid as he11 and wreckless- justice was served. The End. 
. Sound familiar?
