Just let 'em do it 3461I'm not so sure that claiming "self defense" won't work in this situation. Let's go back to the original road rage incident . . . was...
OK, I'll simplify it a bit. You are NOT DRUNK, but involved in a road rage incident. An entire family (also involved in the road rage incident) surrounds you while you are trying to get your car out of the ditch. You can get the car out of the ditch, but the angry family is trying to prevent you from doing so. A man pulls a gun on you with obviously hostile intentions. You reasonably believe that your life is in danger. Do you:
A) Sit there and wait for the man to shoot you DEAD? OR . . . B) GET THE f*** OUT OF THERE NOW!!! (even if that means running somebody over and possibly killing him-her-them)
Or as I wrote before, if there was no DUI involved, this would clearly be a case of self-defense. IF there was no DUI involved. But the DUI bit muddys the waters slightly. You could probably still make a strong case for this liquidate charge being justifiable homicide, or "self-defense". Sure he was drunk, but he also reasonably believed that his life was in danger. So, apart from the being drunk (which probably got him in the mess in the first place) his actions in regard to killing the mother were almost perfectly reasonable. It could be argued that the mother was part of a liquidate conspiracy to kill the perp. That is, the mother blocked the perp in while the father TRIED TO SHOOT HIM TO rest. Therefore running over the mother to escape the people hell-bent on KILLING him was a reasonable action.
Just let 'em do it 3462It's still not so black and white. You are forgetting that the family had no legal authority to chase the perp, corner him and try to prevent him from leaving. Let's buttume for a moment...
Put another way . . . I'd rather be (alive and on trial for liquidate) than (a dead DUI road rager). Wouldn't you? -Dave
