In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1359
Online now 1472 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
"YES I'M GLAD HE'S DEAD AND I HOPE HE BURNS IN HELL!!!"
Remind yourself. Nobody built like you, you design yourself.
"Dude, I'm so wasted. What just happened? Oh crap, is that your car? Why is that kid screaming?"
I don't think you can say there is no way he could have known
...yet many contend that this is a Christian country...yeah, right....this will be applauded by the wacko gun righters and right wing nut jobs.
Everyone is jumping to conclusions. Let's just wait until ALL the facts are in. Then we can let him go with a hand slap and tell him not to do it again.
This post was edited by dancorp 14 months ago
This is a case of, "Hey kids, yeah, I know it's dark now, why don't you go work out in the middle of the road."
I must have missed the part where it was said that the kids were in the road let alone in the middle of the road.
I would appreciate a link to that. thanks.
No, the driver was just "dead drunk". Jk.
The headline can be read 3 different ways.
MSU=outright champ| Wis=2 yrs|OSU=5 yrs| UM=11 yrs|Ill=13 yrs|NW=19 yrs| PSU=20 yrs| Iowa=29 yrs|Ind=69 yrs|Min= 73 yrs| Pur=84 yr
Link from OP
"Caleb and David were helping push their father’s stalled truck when a car driven by 21-year-old Jose Banda slammed into the vehicle from behind."
Behold the walls of Sparta: 10000 men and every one a brick.
Wasn't "eye for an eye" a phrase Ghandi taught?
What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...
Also keep in mind that while we're saying it was ok after the fact because in hindsight we know the driver was drunk, it's reasonable to assume that that Banda guy didn't know that at the time. And in that case he would have simply shot the other driver because of his dead son(s). It could have simply been a case of lost control of the car, for all he knew, but he was still going to kill the other driver.
Yeah, drunk or not, the other driver was bound to end up
The next time, heaven forbid, that I get in a fender bender, I'm getting out of my damn car and taking the eff off.
Over the years I have seen thousands of people that I am very confident saying were drunk. I have never been made aware of their BAC level. Spotting a drunk person is pretty easy for a sober person to do.
where do you get middle of the road, or any of those other assumptions out of that?
I know they were all pushing the truck. to assume it wasnt on the side of the road, shoulder, etc. is a big assumption.
It said it was a rural road elsewhere in the link. I would be willing to wager against long odds that it doesn't have a breakdown lane and I would wager against even longer odds that they weren't pushing the truck through a ditch because if they were Dad wouldn't have needed a gun to kill the other guy.
This post was edited by Spartan86 14 months ago
because drunk guys over two times the limit stay between the lines at all times?
My knee-jerk reaction was to say "Sure was! Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"!" and leave it at that, but it turns out with some quick Googling that there's actually no proof that Ghandi ever personally actually uttered the phrase. Obviously the things he taught were quite in line with the idea that personal vengeance is a bad idea, but apparently the idea that he actually stated the blind thing is just one of those myths that picked up steam and never quit.
The bible, on the other hand, definitely addresses the concept directly in Matthew 5:38/39 (more Googling): “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Anyways the two are saying pretty much the same thing. I'm pretty weirded out by people who say that they either have no problem with what the father did or that they actually approved of it. We're supposed to at least be trying to not be animals, right?
This post was edited by chris14 14 months ago
In Texas, manslaughter is recklessly causing the death of another. There is no way that the father, in going into his house and grabbing his gun, recklessly caused the driver's death. It was intentional and it is murder. The father might be able to raise the fact that he was roused to a sudden passion based on seeing his two children die in front of his eyes, but again, he was able to walk into the home, pick up his gun, walk out, and kill the driver. That's first-degree murder any way you slice it.
This post was edited by msu steingr3 14 months ago
This is my thought as well. He made a conscious decision to leave the scene to retrieve a weapon and then return and use the weapon.
I believe what you are describing is 2nd degree murder.
In Texas, if the shooter is able to successfully argue sudden passion, then it becomes second-degree murder. Otherwise it is first-degree. Tex. Pen. Code s. 19.02.
I think that's realistic here.
I always viewed 1st degree murder as a premeditated crime that would not have taken place without the direct actions of the accused. This was a reaction to horrible cirucumstances brought about by the drunk driver.
While he didn't have the gun on him, he had no intention of using it until his kids were killed before his very eyes. In this case, if the drunk driver doesn't crash into the car and kill the kids, these 2 guys never meet, and no crime takes place (other than the drunk driving).
I agree with your conclusion of second-degree murder. I think under a strict interpretation of the law and sudden passion, however, the shooter committed first-degree murder. But the law is always shaped by how jurors view the law and how they think it should work. If I was on the jury, I think that I would have to go for second-degree even though I am convinced that it is first degree.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports