Father Acquitted of Killing Drunk Driver

[IIOY]

I said this on FB, but I didn't realize there was any controversy about whether the father actually killed this guy. When we discussed this here earlier, we all thought it was a given that he did it.

Anyway, I don't really care who did it because I have no problem with a dead drunk driver. The only tragedy is that he took two lives before losing his own.

[anonymous]

I'm not really okay with what he did. I get it but I don't think people should be taking the law into their own hands like this

[eclaires]

I have vague memories of this story, but didn't it happen right in the moment making it a crime of passion?

It's a different standard and crime than cold blooded murder if I remember correctly. I'm going to watch the video now.

[IIOY]

Aug 28, 2014 7:19:13 GMT -5 mockingbird said:

He shot and killed him, for revenge? I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But I'm not getting how it's not murder??

An article I read yesterday explained that the evidence linking him to the murder was unclear at best, meaning that as logical as it would be that he did it in a fit of rage, the police simply didn't have enough evidence to actually meet the evidentiary burden of proof.

[AllieHound]

The prosecuted had very little evidence, and It was a defendant that jurors would have been sympathetic to even if he said "I killed that bastard, so what?"... So I can't say I'm sad he was acquitted. I'll be damned if I'm supposed to support a life imprisonment of a guy who just watched both of his children be murdered.

[Deleted]

There was another article that talked about the evidence that was presented during the case. If the article was accurate I would acquit too. I don't necessarily agree with what he did, but the evidence was definitely lacking.

[Deleted]

I saw the articles explaining how he was supposed to have done it and I'm sorry, I just don't believe it. I don't believe he would have left his babies fucked up and dying in the road to trudge home and get a gun. I also don't believe he had the presence of mind to get rid of the gun either before the po po showed up.

Now if it had been his gun, if the prosecutors could say he kept one in the glove compartment and he'd shot the dude right there, the gun being found by EMS on the damned scene, I'd still acquit. Mostly because I'd be all

[cinnamoncox]

Aug 28, 2014 7:19:13 GMT -5 mockingbird said:

He shot and killed him, for revenge? I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But I'm not getting how it's not murder??

I thought it was cut and dry too, then I read in yesterday's article that there's no murder weapon linked to the shooting, the father tested negative for gun shot residue on his hands, and no witnesses.
So it doesn't sound like there was much evidence and that's a lot of reasonable doubt I suppose.

I can't imagine that father's pain and I can't judge at all. And won't.

[KateAggie]

He shouldn't have been tried in the first place. The evidence wasn't there.

[elleblue]

Aug 28, 2014 7:20:59 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Aug 28, 2014 7:19:13 GMT -5 mockingbird said:

He shot and killed him, for revenge? I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But I'm not getting how it's not murder??

An article I read yesterday explained that the evidence linking him to the murder was unclear at best, meaning that as logical as it would be that he did it in a fit of rage, the police simply didn't have enough evidence to actually meet the evidentiary burden of proof.

If the state didn't meet the burden of proof, then I'm glad he was acquitted. 

What scares me are all the people who think he shouldn't have been convicted* regardless. The turn towards acceptance of vigilantism does not bode well. 

*in this case it's clear that there was not enough evidence, so I'm talking in generalities here 

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2014 10:23:26 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Aug 28, 2014 7:20:59 GMT -5 IIOY said:

An article I read yesterday explained that the evidence linking him to the murder was unclear at best, meaning that as logical as it would be that he did it in a fit of rage, the police simply didn't have enough evidence to actually meet the evidentiary burden of proof.

If the state didn't meet the burden of proof, then I'm glad he was acquitted. 

What scares me are all the people who think he shouldn't have been convicted* regardless. The turn towards acceptance of vigilantism does not bode well. 

*in this case it's clear that there was not enough evidence, so I'm talking in generalities here 

I don't think feeling he shouldn't have been convicted even if the evidence was there = accepting vigilantism. If he'd gone out and found the dude two days later, yes. But moments after watching his children be killed right before his eyes? No, the law makes a distinction for those types of crimes for a reason. I don't think it would take a defense attorney very long at all to convince a jury that dude wasn't in his right mind.

[IIOY]

Aug 28, 2014 10:23:26 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Aug 28, 2014 7:20:59 GMT -5 IIOY said:

An article I read yesterday explained that the evidence linking him to the murder was unclear at best, meaning that as logical as it would be that he did it in a fit of rage, the police simply didn't have enough evidence to actually meet the evidentiary burden of proof.

If the state didn't meet the burden of proof, then I'm glad he was acquitted. 

What scares me are all the people who think he shouldn't have been convicted* regardless. The turn towards acceptance of vigilantism does not bode well. 

*in this case it's clear that there was not enough evidence, so I'm talking in generalities here 

Keep in mind that the law recognizes that a heightened state of agitation in response to something shocking should mitigate punishment.  In this case, he could have been convicted of a passion killing, essentially meaning he was out of his mind with grief and rage when he killed the man and therefore shouldn't be punished as harshly.

[elleblue]

Oh I get that and fully understand that the law makes distinctions, with good reason. I was just thinking more about the thread on ML about this topic where some people expressed being perfectly okay with his actions. Understanding them is one thing, I'm on that page myself, feeling he's entirely justified (and therefore shouldn't be punished at all) is another imho. 

But really it's all a moot point as he probably shouldn't have even been tried in the first place given the lack of substantial evidence.