In hindsight, I bet he regrets not choking the ****. Could always say he was trying to 'revive' him in a rescue attempt. I'd buy that for a dollar...
|
|
In hindsight, I bet he regrets not choking the ****. Could always say he was trying to 'revive' him in a rescue attempt. I'd buy that for a dollar...
So, it's ok for women to murder their babies, but it's not ok for this guy to kill a guy that killed his kids? Typical liberal logic.Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma
3 users like DIB's post: 2121sooner, keefsmangledfingers, quatrogenerian
Can't be worse than 2 dead kids ... I would rather be in prison than lose my son.
yes it was, in the end this man is still the father of 2 dead kids and that is not something anyone wants to know the pain of.
He apparently didn't live very far. I can see how this could be sold as a heat of passion defense if his dead sons were still at the scene, as well as the guy who just killed them.
The dad needs to be charged and tried by a jury of his peers. If that jury acquits or lets him off with a very light sentence, I'd be fine with that.
The following users like this post: ArbySooner
It helps me get an erection
The following users like this post: keefsmangledfingers
Yes.
Maybe he could just convince the jury he was performing a late term abortion?
No ****. Why didn't he have some of the other 20 Mexicans in the cab help out.
The following users like this post: Sieve
Impossible for me to forsee any scenario where the guy is acquitted ... unless the DA is a moron and doesn't give the jury alternative conviction options.If that jury acquits
This guy, what a murdering piece of s**** and a ****ty parent. He should have just made his wife murder those babies from the get go and he could have afforded a better ****ing truck to begin with.
Makes sense. You certainly know more about it than I do.
I can understand the guy's anger but walking home to get the gun has pre-meditation written all over it.
hypocrite
False.
The prosecution will probably argue that once he removed himself from the scene, went to his house, got his gun, came back and shot the guy, it was no longer in the "heat of passion."
No, True.
You are forgetting about his Latin temper
****s got real
I'm sure they will. The question is if they defense can sell that it still was. What would be the catharsis for the removal of the heat of passion? Would it disappear when he entered his house? When he left the scene? What if he lived two houses from the scene? It's not cut and dried, which is why it needs to be tried and decided by a jury. I'm no lawyer, but if they only conviction option is 1st degree murder, I think he could easily walk.
There's no "light sentence" for murder 1 (which this certainly seems to be). You get life with or without the chance of parole. I think a jury will have a hard time convicting him.
They said the same thing about Ersland and that involved a white business owner shooting a black kid.
Ersland was defending property, not grieving over his dead sons. And had the Ersland facts been a bit different... I seem to remember him reloading or coming back or something... might well have been a different result.
The following users like this post: Shooterms
Defending a store is not the same as a dead child ... and this man shot him one time he did not reload his gun and fill him full of wholes...
well, that is what tire irons are for.
Defending isn't really the right term, though. It seems that both Ersland and the dad were essentially dealing payback. That is why the jury had no sympathy for Ersland as he was dealing payback for the robbery, while the dad is dealing payback for the death of his children. That is the difference. It's a glaring difference, even if OOO can't see it.
2 users like Shooterms's post: BajaOklahoma, jmizzy4ou
ersland didn't have to go very far to shoot his gun down the street or to reload his pistol. you see how well that worked out for him.
Ersland didn't have any dead children on the floor of the pharmacy.
The following users like this post: BajaOklahoma
no, he had 2 dudes with guns trying to rob him.
They weren't trying to rob him while he reloaded.
true defending is the wrong term, in the case of the dead kids avenging and in Ersland's case perhaps defense of his property but comparing a dead kid to a pharmacy is bad
I"m glad he killed that driver.
Wow, the plot thickens. It was just released that the drunk driver was wearing a hoodie, so the shooter may have been justified.
BTW, if the driver were stoned, the boys would have just had a few scrapes and bruises.
exactly.
If Erlsand had only defended himself and the property, he would be free right now. After incapacitating the kid, though, he got a second gun and killed the kid while he was no longer a threat. That is why he is in prison.
Made sure that the drunk would not kill anyone else's children.
3 users like Big Red One's post: Aurora, keefsmangledfingers, quatrogenerian
yes, specifically, he made sure the drunk driver would never kill my children. Thanks buddy.
The following users like this post: macdaddybuff
The act of returning home to retreive a weapon shows adequate forthought to warrant first degree murder.
According to whom?
Typical Conservative to make any discussion focus on abortion.
In this case he gets both. He also gets blood on his hands that he is responcible for.
He was not defending the child. The child was already dead.
The law.
Legal Precedent.
Oh, I see. Perhaps you could quote both of them for me, so it is clear.
Perhaps I could but I am too lazy to research legal precedent for you.
You know there is a precedent that pertains to this case so specifically that you are certain there was legal premeditation...but you still have to research it?
I know there is alot of precedent regarding premeditation. Not being a lawyer, I cant name a case for you. Knowing 12 of them working Capitol Trial Division, a simple phone call or text and I can give you a list. Im just not willing to do that.
Just an overall sad situation.
The following users like this post: Aurora
Yeah,,,,,,and don't be poor!!!
Ever been in a car crash? You get a huge adrenalin surge and don't really think clearly. I don't care that he left and came back. He wasn't in his right mind and he had the adrenalin on board.
I could see temporary insanity.
More than likely the Big House for him...
But it doesn't justify going and getting a gun and murdering someone in cold blood. I can't believe you or anyone else is defending this guy.
I was in mental health hearings all afternoon, but really wanna read this thread. Before I do - has it already been ****ed over? If so, I'll dis move on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
