Chad Walker kills someone, gets support of local church.

[bannination]

Really? He murders someone in cold blood and gets 10 years? Sighs of relief in the courtroom because his sentence was not bad??

WTF, this isn't justice. I'd get more jail time for pirating a mp3. "I was drunk" is now an excuse for MURDER!

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/201 ... nslaughter

Sighs of relief filled the packed courtroom as the judge recommended Walker for enrollment in the Department of Corrections' Advanced Supervised Release program. The order means he may be out of prison in about seven years.

[Boatrocker]

Really? He murders someone in cold blood and gets 10 years? Sighs of relief in the courtroom because his sentence was not bad??

Well, it ain't like some brown guy shot some white guy.

[bannination]

Really? He murders someone in cold blood and gets 10 years? Sighs of relief in the courtroom because his sentence was not bad??

Well, it ain't like some brown guy shot some white guy.

DING DING DING!

[\V/]

Dr. Tony Shira, ... agreed that the episode on Oct. 4, 2011, was “consistent with an alcoholic blackout.”

I'm confused as to why abusing alcohol is a socially accepted defense!!!
Shouldn't that be seen as a decision, and a contributing element in all violations...instead of a reason to reduce responsibility, or severity of actions that result from that choice , and it's outcome?

[O Really]

That's outrageous. The "I wuz drunk" defense is even worse than the "opps" defense. Bet it wouldn't have worked if he'd stabbed him instead of using a gun. And BTW, wasn't this guy a "law-abiding citizen" with an apparently legal gun?

[\V/]

Agreed!!!
I object to it being used as a means to reduce one's accountability...it just seems wrong

[O Really]

Voluntary manslaughter and a theoretical 10 years isn't a picnic, but here's the thing - being drunk is an aggravating factor in a traffic accident, that is, you get a stiffer penalty for running into somebody while drunk than you do if you have the same accident while sober. Why is being drunk an ameliorating factor here? He basically got the same decision/sentence as he would have gotten if he had been playing with his gun in the parking lot and accidentally shot a guy inside the motel. So it begs the question, what would have have gotten if he had not been drunk when he shot the guy? If the answer is "more time, harsher penalty" then we do have a majorly sticky wicket here.

[bannination]

If someone pirates a single movie they can get 5 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

I can kill someone when I'm drunk and only get 7....... WHAT THE FUCK??? How can anyone not see that's wrong?

All this does is send a message, if you're going to kill, kill drunk, you get a lighter sentence.

[bannination]

I agree on some of the comparisons, though the ability to form intent should matter. He apparently did not have it.

Of course, if we did not jail so many for victimless or minor crimes there would be less incentive for DAs to deal on major ones.

If he's walking around the motel with a gun drinking, I think the intent is pretty clear. That's just me though. Oh, and I may be wrong, but I remember him walking door to door trying to find this guy. There was a recording you could listen to of the 911 call.

[bannination]

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/201 ... /120519815

Previous news on the subject, still searching for earlier article.

[O Really]

According to the article, there is no testimony that he had "no reason" other than being shit-faced to shoot the Mexican - other than the testimony of the shooter who says he can't remember most of the night. We do know he was at a motel where he didn't live and as far as we know didn't know anybody, drunk in the parking lot, waving around a gun and knocking on doors. "Asking for a light"?? Seriously? Who knocks on a motel door to get a light? But my objection isn't to the sentence itself. Sure, first offender, remorse, and WTF, it was only a Mexican - let him off with voluntary manslaughter on a plea bargain. But considering bum-stumbling falling-down drunk as a legal defense to shooting somebody I still consider outrageous. Creative, but outrageous. I can hardly wait to see how that defense might be used in the future. "She said 'no'? Really? I wuz drunk and don't remember but I thought she said 'yes.' "I din't know I wuz robbing that store - I wuz drunk and don't remember it."

[O Really]

Heck, I bet half the people in jail now are there for doing something they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been drinking or high on something.

[Leo Lyons]

There seems to be no doubt that he was very impaired and had no particular reason to target the victim. Voluntary manslaughter and 10 years is no picnic. Not having witnessed the trial and his contrition I'm not as outraged by the result as you are.

Agreeing to a point; but something stinks somewhere.

“He was in an alcoholic blackout at the time of the incident" shouldn't be a viable excuse. He had to have other issues; for instance:
The s.o.b. was drunk out of his gourd, pissed off about what life was handing him, and instead of consulting someone in his church family for
spiritual guidance, he paraded around a motel known for renting to transient labor, and randomly knocks on a door and guns down the half-asleep victim.

THEN the church family rallies around him in support of his "I didn't mean to, but I was drunk" defense. Bullshit. Cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded
murder, not voluntary manslaughter. The fact that he had no previous record should landed him a sentence of life, which is actually about 25-35 years or so.

[O Really]

Not from a legal standpoint, but a personal standpoint, I'd have felt better about him if he had had some sort of reason to shoot the guy. Disrespected his mama. Whatever. And at what point did he get started down the wrong path before he was in a "black out"? Would that have been when he put his gun in his pocket/car and bought something to drink? What was he doing out drinking and carrying a gun, anyway? Odds of getting caught at that are slim. If they'd tighten down on enforcement of some existing law, there might not be such a need for new ones.

[Bungalow Bill]

Jesus will set you free, or at least kick a good deal off your sentence. I don't
know if this was ever a first-degree murder case, but this guy won the lottery.
Got a break? Yeah, I guess so. One can only wonder what would have happened
if he had killed a person with close ties to the community instead of a migrant
worker who might have had no family around to look out for his interests. And
he was so impaired by alcohol that after he shot the guy he got into his car
and drove off. Too bad the Academy Awards are over for this year.

[bannination]

There seems to be no doubt that he was very impaired and had no particular reason to target the victim. Voluntary manslaughter and 10 years is no picnic. Not having witnessed the trial and his contrition I'm not as outraged by the result as you are.

Agreeing to a point; but something stinks somewhere.

“He was in an alcoholic blackout at the time of the incident" shouldn't be a viable excuse. He had to have other issues; for instance:
The s.o.b. was drunk out of his gourd, pissed off about what life was handing him, and instead of consulting someone in his church family for
spiritual guidance, he paraded around a motel known for renting to transient labor, and randomly knocks on a door and guns down the half-asleep victim.

THEN the church family rallies around him in support of his "I didn't mean to, but I was drunk" defense. Bullshit. Cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded
murder, not voluntary manslaughter. The fact that he had no previous record should landed him a sentence of life, which is actually about 25-35 years or so.

Hells freezing over if Leo even sort of agrees with me.

[Leo Lyons]

Hells freezing over if Leo even sort of agrees with me.

And me. I've always thought of him as bridge builder.

If I were you, I wouldn't put away my mukluks just yet.

[O Really]

Well I'll be damned, and stand corrected. Being shit-faced is a legitimate defense for crimes in which intent is a necessary component... http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/stu ... crim14.htm

Still not right, though.