A father shoots 'drunk' driver moments after his children were killed...

BattleCorp

HondaSami wrote: »

I'm a woman, drive at night all the time in a rural area and no I don't need a gun in my car.
I know it's legal in Texas but thankfully it will never be legal in Ireland for the very reason this thread was started.

Funny enough, guns are legal in Ireland, even handguns.

Ireland is a lot safer than the US. Do you live in Ireland or the US? Fair enough, you probably don't need a gun here in Ireland for self defence, in fact, they aren't allowed here for self defence, but if you were in America, you might think differently.

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

So a woman, alone, at night, in heels, on a remote rural road with a broken down car. See why people carry guns in their cars in this part of the world?

do you live in bandit country? In that situation, I'd rather have sensible shoes and a clear mind than a gun.

A_Sober_Paddy

starlings wrote: »

the kids' deaths were manslaughter; the drunk driver's was murder. It's a question of intent - the drunk driver is culpable, but unless he deliberately hit the children, he didn't murder them. The father was so crazed with shock and grief, understandably, that he wanted to kill the driver. Sadly, no one stopped him. I say this with more sympathy for the father than the driver, btw.

Well I'm of the opinion that if you decide to drink and get drunk and do something wrong your totally in the wrong...I'm of the opinion that what the driver did was as guilty as walking into a bank with a loaded gun who kills someone in the commission of robbing the bank...I will accept my views are very right wing on this and also not within the current structure of the law...but that's why i did the law is wrong on a moral level

wolfpawnat

Denis322 wrote: »

Though one thing that may have been discussed in the article and I just didn't pick up on, is the fact that it was actually a dark night. There's a reason people wear reflective clothing out on the roads at night, and I feel if the drive had been sober and hit two children out with their father on a dark country road it would be a completely different case.

They were probably not prepared for the breakdown. But it makes you think. Definitely putting a reflector jacket in my MIL's boot just in case. He was probably at the side of the car giving the mother instructions as she tried to steer it and left the boys behind for just a moment. It could have been all three of them.

I think the young man being drunk was the crux. If he were sober I imagine the father would have been grief-strickenly attempting to punch the other man, but as soon as you would realise he was drunk, all sense would go out the window.

MadsL

HondaSami wrote: »

I'm a woman, drive at night all the time in a rural area and no I don't need a gun in my car.
I know it's legal in Texas but thankfully it will never be legal in Ireland for the very reason this thread was started.

You frankly have no idea how remote some of the roads can be in this part of the world.

Your experience of driving there is not the same as here. When was the last time you heard of an road ambush or carjacking in Ireland?

Denis322

opinion guy wrote: »

To turn this on its head.

Supposing the guy wasn't drunk ? He rear-ended a car on a dark rural road at night with two kids pushing it - presumably blocking the lights if they were working. It may not have been his fault. You gotta wonder about the safety of having your kids push your truck on a dark road at night don't ya think ?

I agree with ya on that one. Though when driving, pretty sure you're only supposed to drive a speed which allows you to stop inside your field of vision, even at night. Which would still mean he was going too fast to stop once they came into view of his headlights.

Procrastastudy

lockon... wrote: »

All death's in this case were caused by manslaughter.

You're applying Irish law and applying it wrong.

US has a massive, codified, penal code - states also have local laws. At common law the shooting was murder.

The initial collision could have been any number of things under US/Texas law including (possibly) vehicular homicide.

starlings

lockon... wrote: »

All death's in this case were caused by manslaughter.

I can't agree. I understand why people, especially parents, would say they might react like this man did, but I think they would actually intend to kill. It's such a shame there wasn't anyone there to stop him.

BattleCorp

wolfpawnat wrote: »

They were probably not prepared for the breakdown. But it makes you think. Definitely putting a reflector jacket in my MIL's boot just in case. He was probably at the side of the car giving the mother instructions as she tried to steer it and left the boys behind for just a moment. It could have been all three of them.

I think the young man being drunk was the crux. If he were sober I imagine the father would have been grief-strickenly attempting to punch the other man, but as soon as you would realise he was drunk, all sense would go out the window.

If I saw that my two kids had been killed, do you think I'd notice if the driver had been sober or drunk?

Everybody reacts to a huge trauma like this in a different way. Most likely, you wouldn't be totally in control of your actions, so I reckon tempory insanity would probably be in play.

To be honest, I haven't one single ounce of compassion for the drunk driver. The only thing I might possibly feel sorry for is that the father lost his two sons and his wife could possibly lose her husband and her two sons.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

You frankly have no idea how remote some of the roads can be in this part of the world.

Your experience of driving there is not the same as here. When was the last time you heard of an road ambush or carjacking in Ireland?

Plenty going on during the troubles - we didn't all saddle up!

MadsL

starlings wrote: »

do you live in bandit country? In that situation, I'd rather have sensible shoes and a clear mind than a gun.

Here is roughly the spot she broke down.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.734522,-104.455488&spn=1.385863,3.120117&t=h&z=9&layer=c&cbll=34.734522,-104.455488&panoid=K8KPvA4poLLD5N_psbiaHg&cbp=12,150.18,,0,0

Now, explain to me how sensible shoes help her when a couple of rednecks with a mind to party roll up and there's no cell phone coverage.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Here is roughly the spot she broke down.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.734522,-104.455488&spn=1.385863,3.120117&t=h&z=9&layer=c&cbll=34.734522,-104.455488&panoid=K8KPvA4poLLD5N_psbiaHg&cbp=12,150.18,,0,0

Now, explain to me how sensible shoes help her when a couple of rednecks with a mind to party roll up and there's no cell phone coverage.

Looks like it hasn't rained for a couple of days in Mayo

wolfpawnat

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I saw that my two kids had been killed, do you think I'd notice if the driver had been sober or drunk?

Everybody reacts to a huge trauma like this in a different way. Most likely, you wouldn't be totally in control of your actions, so I reckon tempory insanity would probably be in play.

To be honest, I haven't one single ounce of compassion for the drunk driver. The only thing I might possibly feel sorry for is that the father lost his two sons and his wife could possibly lose her husband and her two sons.

We have no idea if he noticed, to be honest, I never want to find out personally. But if he did I dare say that would have added to it.

He was temporarily insane, I have very little doubt of that. Poor parents, I cannot imagine the grief they are going through.

If I was a bystander and in no way affiliated with the family I almost would do it myself. Drink drivers are a huge issue with me. Selfish bástards. And he was only just a kid himself. Idiot!

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Plenty going on during the troubles - we didn't all saddle up!

Frankly, bollocks. Plenty of people got firearms licences in the North for personal protection, and there were plenty of guns buried or hidden after the end of the Civil War.

High horse you have.

BattleCorp

:eek:

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Plenty going on during the troubles - we didn't all saddle up!

A hell of a lot of people up in the North have legally held handguns. A lot of them have been issued for self defence, about 3000 in fact.

153,459 legally held guns up there in 2012 and probably ten times that hidden behind the couch. :eek:

3ndahalfof6

It is not that long ago drink driving was acceptable in Ireland, it is only through education (and a lot of it) that we now view drink driving as a no no, how is it viewed or how is it thought in this instance,

as has been mentioned by other posters, had the children got clothing on so they could be seen at night,

we do not know yet if the driver was drunk, as we do not know yet were the children wearing clothes or some item of clothing that was visible at night,

while this is a very sad happening, everything that was or might be wrong about the final outcome must be looked at,

while I feel very sad that two young people lost their lives and the driver of the car, there is more than one lesson to be learned here,

25yrs ago in Ireland it was no biggie to drink drive, I lost my sister when she was killed by a drunk driver, so I do know what I am talking about.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Frankly, bollocks. Plenty of people got firearms licences in the North for personal protection, and there were plenty of guns buried or hidden after the end of the Civil War.

High horse you have.

No just a healthy disagreement with your attitude to guns.

BattleCorp wrote: »

A hell of a lot of people up in the North have legally held handguns. A lot of them have been issued for self defence, about 3000 in fact.

3000 out of a population of? Issued as in with a reason to certain people? Seems like a reasonable compromise rather than everyone having one in their car for very little reason.

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

No just a healthy disagreement with your attitude to guns.
3000 out of a population of? Issued as in with a reason to certain people? Seems like a reasonable compromise rather than everyone having one in their car for very little reason.

I've just given you a very real reason.

remote road, broken down, woman alone.

BattleCorp

Procrastastudy wrote: »

No just a healthy disagreement with your attitude to guns.


.

A couple of quick questions for you.

1. Do you shoot? In other words, do you know much about guns, and I don't mean "yeah, sure I've seen them in films"?

2. What part of MadsL's attitude to guns do you not like? Is it that you don't like guns for self defence, or is it that you don't like guns full stop?

wolfpawnat

MadsL wrote: »

I've just given you a very real reason.

remote road, broken down, woman alone.

Not to mention, wasn't there a thing recently that there is approximately 300 active serial killers at any one time in the US! :eek: I'd have two, just in case!!!!

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

I've just given you a very real reason.

remote road, broken down, woman alone.

Thanks but we simply don't have the same issues you have there hence, and thank God, we don't have the same attitudes to guns, even if we did this was Big guy, and kids pushing truck - tragic situation and even more tragic outcome because of a gun in the boot.

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

Here is roughly the spot she broke down.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=34.734522,-104.455488&spn=1.385863,3.120117&t=h&z=9&layer=c&cbll=34.734522,-104.455488&panoid=K8KPvA4poLLD5N_psbiaHg&cbp=12,150.18,,0,0

Now, explain to me how sensible shoes help her when a couple of rednecks with a mind to party roll up and there's no cell phone coverage.

You mentioned she was in high heels.

So I thought these would be a hindrance walking on that road, or running, if the hypothetical rednecks rock up.

I don't know what the violent crime rate is on a road 1000s of km away - how would I? - but I reckon the solution of carrying guns means people don't stop to help drivers in trouble. Which is depressing.

Procrastastudy

BattleCorp wrote: »

A couple of quick questions for you.

1. Do you shoot? In other words, do you know much about guns, and I don't mean "yeah, sure I've seen them in films"?

2. What part of MadsL's attitude to guns do you not like? Is it that you don't like guns for self defence, or is it that you don't like guns full stop?

Yep been shooting various things from about 12 - from the L98-A1 (cadet rifle based on the SA-80 range) to hand guns and my favourite was a WWII band of brother machine gun (sorry I really don't know the proper name!). Hand guns not so much. Plenty of shotguns but I don't think they really count in Ireland! I love shooting but don't have anywhere near enough money to do it as much as I'd like.

I think we're going somewhat off topic however.

HondaSami

MadsL wrote: »

You frankly have no idea how remote some of the roads can be in this part of the world.

Your experience of driving there is not the same as here. When was the last time you heard of an road ambush or carjacking in Ireland?

I get what you are saying but if it's that dangerous then women should not travel alone, I suppose men are at risk as well.

I still would not like to have to travel with a loaded gun in my car.

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Thanks but we simply don't have the same issues you have there hence, and thank God, we don't have the same attitudes to guns,

But you presume to lecture the US about its gun policy...

even if we did this was Big guy, and kids pushing truck - tragic situation and even more tragic outcome because of a gun in the boot.

Gun was at home - he (allegedly) went to get it.

starlings wrote: »

You mentioned she was in high heels.

So I thought these would be a hindrance walking on that road, or running, if the hypothetical rednecks rock up.

Where the fup would she be walking, or God forbid, running??? Nothing but desert there.

I don't know what the violent crime rate is on a road 1000s of km away - how would I? - but I reckon the solution of carrying guns means people don't stop to help drivers in trouble. Which is depressing.

Actually I find US drivers much more likely to stop and help.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

But you presume to lecture the US about its gun policy...

Yes I most certainly do.

MadsL wrote: »

Gun was at home - he (allegedly) went to get it.

Thank you for the correction I didn't pick that up from the article - it doesn't change the under lying point that if the guy didn't have access to a gun.

BattleCorp

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Yes I most certainly do.



Thank you for the correction I didn't pick that up from the article - it doesn't change the under lying point that if the guy didn't have access to a gun.

We'll never know but maybe if he didn't have a gun at home, he might have come back with a knife, hammer, baseball bat, can of petrol etc and the end result might have been the same.

Millicent

MadsL wrote: »

I've just given you a very real reason.

remote road, broken down, woman alone.

Do you think there's a serial killing rapist hiding in every bush on every highway in America or something?

starlings

MadsL wrote: »

Where the fup would she be walking, or God forbid, running??? Nothing but desert there.

MadsL, I understand that your wife had a frightening experience and I'm glad she's alright. I made my first comment about sensible shoes and a clear head being more useful than a gun in the case of car trouble on a remote road because your first post about your story didn't have a map or crime stats for me to read. This is a thread about a US case, on an Irish-based forum, so it'd be nice if you could fill in the gaps in my understanding less aggressively.

Procrastastudy

BattleCorp wrote: »

We'll never know but maybe if he didn't have a gun at home, he might have come back with a knife, hammer, baseball bat, can of petrol etc and the end result might have been the same.

On that point, I do not disagree. I could easily see myself beating the guy to death - which is the point I'm making to be honest.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Not in Texas, it is perfectly legal, and sensible.

Here's an example why. My wife was just caught out at night on a remote rural road after her rental car got a puncture. She couldn't find the spare (was actually under the car) and the rental company told her they couldn't get out to her, nor could they get a tow truck. She had to try to limp the car to the next town. I'm bawling out the rental car company as we speak.

So a woman, alone, at night, in heels, on a remote rural road with a broken down car. See why people carry guns in their cars in this part of the world?

I think your wife should learn how to change a tyre.

Tin Foil Hat

MadsL wrote: »

Gun was at home - he (allegedly) went to get it.

That'll have given him some time to think. Won't do his, "I just snapped, your Honor", defence any favours.

BattleCorp

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That'll have given him some time to think. Won't do his, "I just snapped, your Honor", defence any favours.

Why not? I'm not aware of a time limit to "temporary insanity". Only that it's temporary, and not permanent. Why couldn't you be temporarily insane for days or weeks and then recover all your faculties?

MadsL

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I think your wife should learn how to change a tyre.

I think you should be less patronising. She knows how to change a tyre. It was a rental car that she was unfamiliar with, the spare was under the car not in the boot - and when was the last time you went crawling under a car in a business suit, in the dirt, at night?

She had also paid for breakdown assistance.

Millicent wrote: »

Do you think there's a serial killing rapist hiding in every bush on every highway in America or something?

You think she should give up her right to self-defence on odds that there isn't?
This isn't about what is likely to happen, it is about the absolute worst case scenario that it is there for.

starlings wrote: »

MadsL, I understand that your wife had a frightening experience and I'm glad she's alright. I made my first comment about sensible shoes and a clear head being more useful than a gun in the case of car trouble on a remote road because your first post about your story didn't have a map or crime stats for me to read. This is a thread about a US case, on an Irish-based forum, so it'd be nice if you could fill in the gaps in my understanding less aggressively.

I see that you misunderstood. However I thought both my location
<--
and the fact that what I posted originally referenced both Texas and "this part of the world" made the fact I wasn't in Ireland pretty clear. Apologies if it came off aggressive.

MadsL wrote: »

Not in Texas, it is perfectly legal, and sensible.

Here's an example why. My wife was just caught out at night on a remote rural road after her rental car got a puncture. She couldn't find the spare (was actually under the car) and the rental company told her they couldn't get out to her, nor could they get a tow truck. She had to try to limp the car to the next town. I'm bawling out the rental car company as we speak.

So a woman, alone, at night, in heels, on a remote rural road with a broken down car. See why people carry guns in their cars in this part of the world?

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

On that point, I do not disagree. I could easily see myself beating the guy to death - which is the point I'm making to be honest.

Then isn't the fact he shot him less tragic? I'd rather a bullet in the head, than being battered to death with a iron bar.

BattleCorp

MadsL wrote: »

Then isn't the fact he shot him less tragic? I'd rather a bullet in the head, than being battered to death with a iron bar.

I think if I killed two kids because of my drunk driving, I'd feel like putting a bullet in my own head.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Then isn't the fact he shot him less tragic? I'd rather a bullet in the head, than being battered to death with a iron bar.

You're probably aware of the disconnect that is suggested. Plus if in a rage I attack, even a drunk person, they stand a chance to defend themselves, they stand less of chance with an iron bar, even less of a chance with a knife but with a gun even less chance again.

So overall I'd prefer no gun to be available, ideally no knife or iron bar either.

Procrastastudy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why not? I'm not aware of a time limit to "temporary insanity". Only that it's temporary, and not permanent. Why couldn't you be temporarily insane for days or weeks and then recover all your faculties?

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

That'll have given him some time to think. Won't do his, "I just snapped, your Honor", defence any favours.

Again in the US I'm sure its different but snapped would suggest provocation or possible automatism rather than an insanity defence. In Ireland an insanity defence only downgrades the charge to manslaughter (not guilty by reason of insanity = guilty of manslaughter) but to be fair most of this is moot. The US are more progressive in their criminal code - that said I suspect it's less forgiving than we think - if we're basing it on Law and Order etc.

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

overall I'd prefer no gun to be available, ideally no knife or iron bar either.

Do you get out in the real world much these days?

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Do you get out in the real world much these days?

Witty retort. More than you know.

MadsL

HondaSami wrote: »

I get what you are saying but if it's that dangerous then women should not travel alone, I suppose men are at risk as well.

I'll get her to quit her job will I? :rolleyes: Your response, as a women, is that women should not travel alone? Wow.

I still would not like to have to travel with a loaded gun in my car.

You know it is not compulsory, right?

weldoninhio

In my opinion, the father should get life/death penalty, whatever the justice system in the states gives for murder. The fact that his kids were killed a few minutes earlier, while sad, shouldn't be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing.

The father has killed another person, yes it was a drunk driver (allegedly) but there is no sliding scale. If someone robs my phone, i can't break his nose/give him a black eye. If someone crashes into you and kills your kids, you can't shoot him.

Procrastastudy

weldoninhio wrote: »

In my opinion, the father should get life/death penalty, whatever the justice system in the states gives for murder. The fact that his kids were killed a few minutes earlier, while sad, shouldn't be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing.

The father has killed another person, yes it was a drunk driver (allegedly) but there is no sliding scale. If someone robs my phone, i can't break his nose/give him a black eye. If someone crashes into you and kills your kids, you can't shoot him.

That doesn't take into account we're all human. Of course in attempting to stop someone robbing your phone you can give them a black eye. Thankfully you can't shoot them in Ireland but I'm really just starting Madsl off again now...

MadsL

weldoninhio wrote: »

In my opinion, the father should get life/death penalty, .

Wow. :eek:

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Wow. :eek:

You're around here enough to know the hang em high brigade is pretty ubiquitous.

MadsL

Procrastastudy wrote: »

That doesn't take into account we're all human. Of course in attempting to stop someone robbing your phone you can give them a black eye. Thankfully you can't shoot them in Ireland but I'm really just starting Madsl off again now...

Would now be a good time to mention a certain Mr McNally

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

I think you should be less patronising. She knows how to change a tyre. It was a rental car that she was unfamiliar with, the spare was under the car not in the boot - and when was the last time you went crawling under a car in a business suit, in the dirt, at night?

She had also paid for breakdown assistance

I'm not being patronising. The reasoning you have given above for carrying a gun is mad.

Which would you rather - the emotional turmoil your wife would go through because she her ruined her business suit? Or, the emotional turmoil she would go through because she killed another human being?

10 minutes to change a tyre but she drove on with a puncture. She could have done more damage that left her immobilised completely and stranded for a lot longer.
You state that many drivers in America would stop and help her with the tyre? What would happen in that situation? How does she know when to point her gun at them? Do you point from the minute they approach the car?

Nope, no matter how I look at it. Gun in your wifes situation doesn't help.

Procrastastudy

MadsL wrote: »

Would now be a good time to mention a certain Mr McNally

I dunno what about OJ?

BattleCorp

weldoninhio wrote: »

If someone robs my phone, i can't break his nose/give him a black eye. .

Yes you can. You are allowed to use "reasonable force".

Your view seems to be very black and white. You don't seem to have heard of "mitigating circumstances"

By your reckoning, if somebody had a gun to your kids head and you shot them, you'd be guilty of murder and have to spend life in jail.

Also, what about insanity? Does it not happen?

HondaSami

MadsL wrote: »

I'll get her to quit her job will I? :rolleyes: Your response, as a women, is that women should not travel alone? Wow.

was that my response?
I'm surprised as I am an independent woman who travels alone all the time. If your wife does not feel safe and you think it's dangerous for her to travel alone then maybe she should stay home where it's safe.