|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out
that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep 2003. See http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that this *******, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005, after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing. Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck. 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005 This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year once you're convicted. I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle. Rob |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
om... I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep 2003. See http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that this *******, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005, after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing. Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck. 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005 This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year once you're convicted. I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle. You might want to query Google Groups on this. Here's a link to one earlier thread on the sentencing: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a317bb3bbda477 Ken's next of kin were consulted on the sentencing process. How much consultation that was I don't know, but Ken (who I unfortunately never met and only know through his writings) seemed to be a man of both strong convictions and of charity and it is likely that his next of kin saw no point to pressing for a long incarceration. From a news story at the time of sentencing: "[DA] Perry said. "Nathan Kifer is a very forgiving man who genuinely wanted Rodgers to succeed in rehabilitation."" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Unreal. He would have received more time for looking at child porn. Not that
looking at child porn is good, but killing someone with a car is worse. That's just wrong. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Mon, 05 Sep 2005 03:43:44 GMT,
, "Gooserider" wrote: Unreal. He would have received more time for looking at child porn. Not that looking at child porn is good, but killing someone with a car is worse. That's just wrong. Welcome to the **** pile cagers have created in place of a just society. -- zk |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Rob Perkins wrote:
I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep 2003. See http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that this *******, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005, after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing. Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck. 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005 This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year once you're convicted. I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle. Rob The result that you and many others (myself included) find objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle". The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street. Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too severe? Regards, Bob Hunt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Rob Perkins wrote:
I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep 2003. See http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that this *******, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005, after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing. Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck. 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005 This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year once you're convicted. I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle. Rob The result that you and many others (myself included) find objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle". The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street. Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too severe? Regards, Bob Hunt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Bob wrote:
It's not a matter of "attitude" but of the law. Having said that, your opinion and mine differ only in that I don't think that posts in r.b.m. will make any difference at all. What *could* make a difference is if, instead of simply ranting in a Usenet group, every poster directed their comments to their elected legislator(s) and asked that the penalties for vehicular homicide be made tougher. How many emails/letters to people that can actually change the law, i.e. State legislators, would have been generated from just this NG if that had happened say five years ago? Regards, Bob Hunt I think mandatory sentences and penalties for vehicular manslaughter don't allow for certain cicumstances to be taken into consideration. Certainly there should be some penalties and it's a tragedy, no question about it. But there are cases where the victim's family wants to grant leniency to the offender. Sometimes they don't even want the person prosecuted. I've heard of cases where teenagers (drunk) killed their best friends who were in another car. Part of the reason we have judges to administer sentences is because they're experienced enough to understand certain circumstances, whether the person is remorseful about what happened, whether the person was drunk, whether it was an accident or intentional, etc. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Bob wrote:
Rob Perkins wrote: I was stunned to visit Ken Kifer's pages after a long time and find out that he had been murdered by a serial drunk driver & drug abuser in Sep 2003. See http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/index.htm Now, a quick search of the Alabama Dept of Corrections site reveals that this *******, Jimmy Don Rodgers, is going to be released on 9/12/2005, after serving just two years for murder from the date of the killing. Rodgers had been released from prison for DUI four hours before he, once more drunk and high, killed Ken Kifer with his pickup truck. 237742 RODGERS, JIMMY DON W M 11/19/1973 Jackson County 09/12/2005 This is a joke. If I got drunk and high and took a gun out and started shooting randomly in the street, they'd lock me up for 20 years for real. If you use a 3000 lb vehicle as a instrument of death, you serve one year once you're convicted. I would really like to know what the twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle. Rob The result that you and many others (myself included) find objectionable about this instance has nothing to do with vehicles per se and everything to do with the legal concept of intent. Since no one else is chiming in I guess it's time for my semi-annual explanation of the "twisted reasoning is in the sentencing decisions that are made when somone kills using a vehicle". The legal difference between a person getting drunk and shooting a gun randomly in the street and the drunk that gets behind the wheel is their intent. Presumably, the drunk driver's intent is get from Point A to Point B. He is engaging in the otherwise legitimate action of transportation. That his impairment endangers the lives of others is unintentional. The drunk shooting a gun randomly in the street has no legitimate purpose and a reasonable person could infer that his intent is to at least threaten the lives of those on the street. #MODE RANT=ON Which is the problem, did he intentionally drive or intentionally drink, or both. He made a decision to drink, when the only previously arranged method to get home was to drive a motor vehicle. Whether he intended to mow down a cyclist should not be part of the equation, because as long as it is, they will continue with slap-on-the-wrist sentances. Instead the law should consider only the question of the intent to DUI, in these cases, and make the individual involved pay as if the result was intentional. #MODE RANT=OFF W |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
Bob wrote: Murder requires either the intent to cause death or performing an act that a reasonable person would know is likely to cause death. That's *likely* not "possibly". Since the overwhelming majority of incidences of drunk driving do not result in anyone's death, most DUI traffic fatalities- absent any evidence of malicious intent or particularly egregious driving behavior- simply don't possess all the elements of the offense of murder. That's why the various States have laws dealing with vehicular homicide as an offense separate from murder. The States could make the penalties for vehicular homicide more severe of course but then the law of unintended consequence could kick in. Do we really want to risk seeing judges and juries refuse to convict the guilty parties not because they believe the accused aren't guilty but simply because they think the punishment for an *unintentional* act is too severe? Regards, Bob Hunt I understand your points. And I understand that you, too, find the early release of this scumbag to be distasteful. But these attitudes, and the policies and decisions they precipitate, are subject to change. It's my understanding that many European countries are far stricter about DUI than the US is. And certainly, the US is stricter than it once was. I think posts, complaints, letters, etc. expressing outrage have some vaule. I think these things will slowly start to change the attitudes. - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kifer's Murderer To Be Released 9/12/2005
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|