If you were on the jury, Would you convict?

[Oldshooter]

I've got two little girls, whom I love dearly - and I don't think it's right to shoot someone in the head, after a traffic accident... even if one drive was inebriated. Or texting. Or looking the wrong way.

Pardner you wont know what you think till you see them murdered. but more power to you. I can only hope I could be that rightous.

[ironglow]

Frankly, I'm with Dee on this.  Somebody who cares so little for others lives, doesn't deserve any better treatment than he meted out to a couple of innocent children.
  What is the old phrase.."turn about is fair play"?  It seems particularly apt in this instance..
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  Then, from YT we get this;
  " I've got two little girls, whom I love dearly - and I don't think it's right to shoot someone in the head, after a traffic accident... even if one drive was inebriated. Or texting. Or looking the wrong way."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  Friend, whether you accept it or not, there is a huge difference between "looking the wrong way" and getting drunk and killing two young boys.
   1)  "Looking the wrong way" is a tragic mistake, in some cases stupid perhaps. 
 
  2) Getting drunk and deciding he doesn't care about the innocent people he may very well injure or kill, is a far different picture!
 
       
    The first instance... is like a hunting accident where someone in camo, screened by thick brush is hit with a bullet fired long range at a game animal..
 
      The second instance... is the same as somebody firing wildly into a crowded room, caring not who or how many they kill.

[yellowtail3]

I've got two little girls, whom I love dearly - and I don't think it's right to shoot someone in the head, after a traffic accident... even if one drive was inebriated. Or texting. Or looking the wrong way.

Pardner you wont know what you think till you see them murdered. but more power to you. I can only hope I could be that rightous.

I'll expand a bit, Oldshooter. I think I would be... crushed, and furious. I just might shoot the son of a bitch. I'd might not be rational. Still, I don't think that would be a just act, even if it sure felt like it at the time. Revenge isn't something we're supposed to engage in. And that is exactly what it would be - revenge. We've got laws for that. If 'he deserved it' was the standard... there would be lots of folks shot. We don't want that to be the standard. I know you already know all this stuff.

If 'he deserved it' were the standard, I can think of a particular divorce lawyer who richly deserves an unforgettable beating administered by me. But I've checked, and it's against the rules, so the bastard walks free to ply his trade; as a result, some other Dads will be kept from their children while they Pay Out. I try to have a good attitude about such things, or at least... a non-lethal attitude. Anyhow... put me down as in favor of shooting scoundrels, but recognizing that I'm not to do it, as I'll have to answer to God and to man, and how I feel AT THE MOMENT may not be how I'll feel after some reflection and more info.

  Friend, whether you accept it or not, there is a huge difference between "looking the wrong way" and getting drunk and killing two young boys.

I'll go out on a fairly thick branch and speculate that the shooter didn't conduct a toxicology, or interview the murdered drive while his lawyer was present.

[subdjoe]

Yes, I would convict.  There was no further threat after the accident.  And, no, I won't buy the "well, if the guy who hit them drives again...." garbage.  There was no immediate threat so no justification of use of deadly force.

He had to walk back to his house to get the gun.  That, to me, is the critical point.  If he had pulled his gun at the scene, I would reluctantly say that the trauma of the crash had him dazed and without impulse control, and be willing to call it voluntary manslaughter, sentenced to time served. Possibly even involuntary manslaughter.

I could still, with sufficient medical evidence, be convinced that due to trauma suffered in the crash he had no control of his actions, but it would be a tough job to convince me.  Murder 1?  No.  Murder 2? Most likely no.   

[thumper113]

No way I'd convict.  A 10 minute walk isn't going to clear up losing 2 children.

He got his "due process".  The process he was due came to fruition.

He knowingly committed a crime and killed two children in the process. 

Last time I checked a vehicle is a deadly weapon and this man's family was just assaulted.

[jhm]

     It seems like my post was lost or ( deleted ) so I  will vote again No I would not convict him, and after the trial was over I would give him a life membership to MADD.   Jim