Jury Finds Texas Man Not Guilty in Shooting Death of Drunk Driver Who Killed Two Sons

originally posted by: luciddream
We should all take revenge this way. It will be a wonderful world.


Stupid.

Now now....That's isn't technically correct though. He was found not guilty. He didn't kill this guy. That guy was killed by a magic bullet from somewhere unknown at this point.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

I think this was likely a case of "We looked realllllly hard for more evidence but shucks... We couldn't find none." It wouldn't be the first time it's happened and it certainly wouldn't be the last. There are "sympathetic" officers and detectives still to be found out there. Sometimes they overlook things...

Interesting. So you're suggesting that there was no hard evidence because perhaps the cops, tried harder to Not find any than they did to find any, so to speak??

That perhaps this guy had a little inside help out of sympathy from LEO???

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

I think this was likely a case of "We looked realllllly hard for more evidence but shucks... We couldn't find none." It wouldn't be the first time it's happened and it certainly wouldn't be the last. There are "sympathetic" officers and detectives still to be found out there. Sometimes they overlook things...

Interesting. So you're suggesting that there was no hard evidence because perhaps the cops, tried harder to Not find any than they did to find any, so to speak??

That perhaps this guy had a little inside help out of sympathy from LEO???

I am suggesting that it is a possibility in this case. I do not know the town or the officers/detectives involved but we would all be a little silly not to believe that this doesn't happen on occasion.

Grieving father, sympathetic officers, street justice, it's not out of the question I don't think.

a reply to: mOjOm

I read it was a drunk and high gang banger driving the car.

Losing both your sons pushing his truck that was out of gas.

Right in front of your eyes...nobody wanted this guy convicted.

Not saying it was right...just saying

a reply to: Bone75

No the defense proved there was plenty of doubt. They couldn't even match the ballistics and there was a third parties blood in the vehicle. There was enough doubt from what I can see. The link you posted is not very detailed.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: mOjOm

I read it was a drunk and high gang banger driving the car.

Losing both your sons pushing his truck that was out of gas.

Right in front of your eyes...nobody wanted this guy convicted.

Not saying it was right...just saying

Oh yah, I totally get what you're saying. I just find it very interesting. Especially since that would mean that without this guy leaving the scene or anything, the other guy somehow got shot by a mystery person without anyone seeing who did it. I just find that to be a very interesting detail.

I fully agree that there wasn't enough proof to convict the guy though. I believe in Innocent until Proven Guilty and in this case there wasn't sufficient proof of that.

yay!

even with the gun in his hand, he wouldn't have been convicted.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Plus nobody else saw any shooter. So does that mean everyone left at some point and some random person came in and shot this guy??

If they picked up their kids and carried them home before the cops and paramedics got there, then I would say maybe.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: mOjOm

Plus nobody else saw any shooter. So does that mean everyone left at some point and some random person came in and shot this guy??

If they picked up their kids and carried them home before the cops and paramedics got there, then I would say maybe.

Have you read anywhere that stated that they left the scene at all??? So far I haven't found any testimony stating whether they may have left or not. I'd love to read what statements were actually given because if they never left the scene, yet also never saw anyone shoot the guy or even heard a shot fired, I kinda wonder how "they think" it might of happened?? After all you would think you might notice something like that even under those conditions.

originally posted by: tsingtao
yay!

even with the gun in his hand, he wouldn't have been convicted.

I kinda doubt that he would get off if they caught him on site, gun in hand. Maybe if he had the gun on him at the time of the wreck and shot the guy he might get temporary insanity or something. But going to his house to get the gun and coming back to shoot the guy and being caught with the gun in hand would result in a conviction. Our legal system doesn't allow for that kind of Justice.

Unless you're rich of course. Then you could probably shoot someone in the face and get caught gun in hand while dancing in the street singing about it and get off. Although it would cost you plenty to do it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: mOjOm

Plus nobody else saw any shooter. So does that mean everyone left at some point and some random person came in and shot this guy??

If they picked up their kids and carried them home before the cops and paramedics got there, then I would say maybe.

Have you read anywhere that stated that they left the scene at all??? So far I haven't found any testimony stating whether they may have left or not. I'd love to read what statements were actually given because if they never left the scene, yet also never saw anyone shoot the guy or even heard a shot fired, I kinda wonder how "they think" it might of happened?? After all you would think you might notice something like that even under those conditions.

I think Bone is saying that to make a point?? I can't be sure because I am not he or she though. If I understand correctly he/she is making the point that nobody else could have done it as they were at the scene the whole time and did not witness anyone else fire the shot. It had to be the father (maybe even the mother?) because the scene was never completely vacated by their family from the initial accident until officers arrived on the scene.

If I'm wrong in that I do apologize to Bone for my assumption and misunderstanding.

Basically he shouldn't have been convicted either way. Laws are supposed to reflect what average humans do and are capable of, not punish them for things half or more would do. So the law here, is unlawful. All the times someone goes to jail for retaliation when their child has been raped or murdered, is unlawful because many people would consider doing this and in the right circumstancs, ie the person's right before them, especially in the heat of the moment, would do this. Its not being in sound mind and body either by the way, a rather extreme case of temporary insanity!!!

He should not be found guilty anywhere.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
I think Bone is saying that to make a point?? I can't be sure because I am not he or she though. If I understand correctly he/she is making the point that nobody else could have done it as they were at the scene the whole time and did not witness anyone else fire the shot. It had to be the father (maybe even the mother?) because the scene was never completely vacated by their family.

If I'm wrong in that I do apologize to Bone for my assumption and misunderstanding.

Right, I totally agree. That's what I'm saying too. That's why I'm curious as to what their story might of been as to how this guy could have been shot without them seeing who did it. Obviously the logical assumption would be that it had to be the father that killed this guy.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

No that's exactly the point I was making. Mojom had me a little confused there.

This was a mercy acquittal, no doubt about it.

originally posted by: Unity_99
He should not be found guilty anywhere.

If he walked to his house, got a gun and went back and shot this guy, he's guilty.

I'm not saying it's the same as killing some innocent random person for no reason. He certainly had his reasons. But that doesn't make it Lawful. I'm not even saying I wouldn't have done the same thing in his place. Most people I'm sure would feel the same way too. But law isn't based on how we feel. Hell, it's not even based on what is Just most of the time either. Laws are about keeping control and maintaining order.

Temporary Insanity would not be allowed because he had to go get the gun and come back. That makes it premeditated legally speaking. Not saying I agree with that exactly, but that's how it is. Temp Insanity is actually a pretty difficult thing to prove in court. It has to be something where it's an almost immediate reaction. Even then, that may not get you off anyway.

Same goes here. I'm not saying I don't understand the reasons he may have had to do it. I can certainly understand where in a similar situation I myself may actually do the same. But that doesn't mean it would be legal to do it either. If I did do what he may allegedly have done, I would be doing it knowing that I was killing him. Just because I have my emotional reasons for doing it doesn't mean it's ok for me to do it. It may explain my actions but it doesn't excuse them.

a reply to: mOjOm

I do believe that is pretty much the only assumption that can be made as well. That's why I feel like those involved in investigating this were sympathetic to this man who just lost his whole family in one fell swoop simply because someone had to drive drunk.

If that is what happened, a part of me is happy for that. Again... Loss of life is a tragedy. But the loss of two lives because of sheer stupidity outweighs that tragedy by a marked amount IMO.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Not only the police, but his neighbors as well. They saw him approach the vehicle, but didn't see him fire the shot?

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Not only the police, but his neighbors as well. They saw him approach the vehicle, but didn't see him fire the shot?

Kind of like Bart Simpson... I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.

I figure the neighbors probably didn't have too difficult a time rallying around this man either. That's a hard blow and most people can sympathize deeply for that kind of loss. Plus people are probably getting kind of pissed off when they try to do the right thing according to the law, but then the law fails them.

I assume that this father was more than willing to risk his freedom to make sure this guy would never enjoy another day of his.

Gosh I'm so conflicted here and will be doing a lot of praying before I go to bed tonight. Although I'm happy that the jury didn't send this guy to prison for the rest of his life, I hate the fact that so many people had to have lied to make it possible.

I shouldn't have rushed to judgement about the drunk driver either. Obviously this was an accident and it probably could've happened to any one of us. Just a sad situation all the way around.

Whether he killed him or not, he is innocent of murder.