Father indicted in death of drunk driver

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Ah, I did not see that. My bad, then.

I still stand by the fact that allowing revenge killings is a bad thing to do. Even by victims.

Not your bad - I had to go digging (which I did initially) to find that out. It isn't in the quoted article, but it is out there in others.

I agree with you that "allowing" revenge killings is generally a bad idea - by anybody. Victims included. However, I do see a difference between the guy walking (or running) 100 or 150 yards (about the length of a football field) into his home to get his gun and shoot the guy after seeing his two sons CRUSHED - vs some premeditated plan that results in a vengeance killing.

Seriously - as a dad of 2 - if that were me - I wouldn't be in my right mind for a long, long time. I can so totally see that this guy might have lost it. The time frame to get the gun and kill the drunk driver - is not enough for it to be premeditated. The shooter just saw his 2 sons crushed to death....

Which brings up the issue of WHY he will get off. Temporary insanity or jury nullification. It would be a rare jury that knows they have nullification rights that would be ok with applying the murder statute to this guy. I don't think its "ok" to commit a vengeance killing. However, given the individual circumstances of this case - the actions could be viewed as justified. That is what a jury may consider in regards to nullification. If they feel he was justified, then that would mean the law would be applied to him in error.

While I am against vigilanteism generally speaking, but I admit that my views are subject to change on it. The reality is that our legal system at this point continues to fail to protect us or rehabilitate the wrongdoer. Its broken - perhaps beyond repair.