Cowboys player killed in car crash; teammate charged

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Brown made the decision to ride with Brent knowing he was drunk, presumably. Ergo, he wasn't a victim and wasn't involuntarily manslaughtered.

Does the law actually work like that, though? I would assume that you could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter if you accidentally kill someone while committing a crime (DUI). Whether the person who died accepted the risk wouldn't be relevant to that. What about charging someone with murder when they kill a rival gang member? Is that person considered a non-victim as they accepted the inherent risk when joining the gang? I agree that killing an innocent bystander is more heinous, but I don't really think that killing a partial participant should be considered a non-crime either.

Yeah, I don't know how the law works. Probably doesn't work like that. And, your point about gangs is well taken.

But, if you're willing to admit killing an innocent bystander is more heinous than killing a guy that went out drinking and got in the car knowing the risks - and I think we can all agree it is - then why shouldn't the law recognize the difference?

Maybe it does. Or maybe it just takes it into account when the sentencing comes.

Either way, I certainly don't feel right about the deceased's family bringing a civil lawsuit.

[BW23]

Well, in this case and given the ultimate consequence being death, I compeltely disagree that Brent deserves the ultimate consequence.

He deserves the utlimate consequence under the law.

[BW23]

Either way, I certainly don't feel right about the deceased's family bringing a civil lawsuit.

Even if the witness reports are true?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Well, in this case and given the ultimate consequence being death, I compeltely disagree that Brent deserves the ultimate consequence.

He deserves the utlimate consequence under the law.

Which is why the law needs to differntiate between different circumstances, imho. He deserves different than a guy that gets drunk, is told not to drive, ignores that and decapitates a 5 year old girl riding her bike on the sidewalk.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Either way, I certainly don't feel right about the deceased's family bringing a civil lawsuit.

Even if the witness reports are true?

I guess my answer to that question is: I think the family should be allowed to bring a lawsuit that is consistent with a lawsuit they would bring if Brent had not been drinking and driving.

[BW23]

Either way, I certainly don't feel right about the deceased's family bringing a civil lawsuit.

Even if the witness reports are true?

I guess my answer to that question is: I think the family should be allowed to bring a lawsuit that is consistent with a lawsuit they would bring if Brent had not been drinking and driving.

Then I guess you think they should, again, assuming the witness reports are true.

Brent, supposedly, saved himself. When others asked if there was anyone else, he didn't respond. There was time to get him out of the car, but he waited until the flames got much bigger, making it impossible to save him.

Of course, we disagree on everything else completely, so I'm sure this is the same.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Either way, I certainly don't feel right about the deceased's family bringing a civil lawsuit.

Even if the witness reports are true?

I guess my answer to that question is: I think the family should be allowed to bring a lawsuit that is consistent with a lawsuit they would bring if Brent had not been drinking and driving.

Then I guess you think they should, again, assuming the witness reports are true.

Brent, supposedly, saved himself. When others asked if there was anyone else, he didn't respond. There was time to get him out of the car, but he waited until the flames got much bigger, making it impossible to save him.

Of course, we disagree on everything else completely, so I'm sure this is the same.

If Brent had done that sober and would have had a civil suit brought on him, then yes, the family should bring a civil suit.

[Socnorb11]

Well, in this case and given the ultimate consequence being death, I compeltely disagree that Brent deserves the ultimate consequence.

He deserves the utlimate consequence under the law.

Which is why the law needs to differntiate between different circumstances, imho. He deserves different than a guy that gets drunk, is told not to drive, ignores that and decapitates a 5 year old girl riding her bike on the sidewalk.

He knew that he was drunk, he knew that he had a passenger, and he knew that the consequences of his decision could be fatal. That is negligence, no matter how you look at it.

The fact that his passenger made a poor decision doesn't make Brent's decision anymore justified. They both made the wrong decision. Brown certainly paid the price for it. Why shouldn't Brentz?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

This is a pointless conversation if you still don't understnad I am not advocating in any way Brent not be held accountable.

Jesus. [expletive].

[Socnorb11]

This is a pointless conversation if you still don't understnad I am not advocating in any way Brent not be held accountable.

Jesus. [expletive].

You don't want him to be accountable for making a decision that cost a man his life, though.

If a guy gets drunk and says "shoot me in the head!", and you do it, it's still murder. Bad decision by the guy who got shot, but that doesn't change the fact that it's murder.