I'd acquit. He is already spending the rest of his life in jail, dwelling every moment of every day over his two dead kids---besides, you can't slay someone's children and expect not to get put down in a fit of parental rage.
case is underway from 2012. Personally if I was family with the drunk driver I wouldnt be upset, ive dealt with family members killed by drunk drivers and family getting DUI's where they could have killed someone. Whats you thought.
David Barajas Alleged Shooting Of Drunk Driver Was 'Execution'
ANGLETON, Texas (AP) — A drunk driver did not deserve "execution" by a Texas father accused of taking the law into his own hands in a fit of rage over the killing of his two sons in a wreck, a prosecutor told jurors on Tuesday.
David Barajas is accused of fatally shooting Jose Banda in December 2012, minutes after Banda plowed into a pickup truck that Barajas and his two sons had been pushing on a rural road. Twelve-year-old David Jr. died at the scene and 11-year-old Caleb died at a hospital. Barajas' truck had run out of gas about 100 yards from the family's home.
In opening statements Tuesday in Barajas' murder trial, prosecutor Brian Hrach told jurors Banda made a horrible decision by drinking and driving,
Banda "deserved punishment. He deserved severe legal punishment, but he did not deserve a public execution," Hrach said.
Barajas allegedly left the scene of the accident, retrieved a gun from his home and returned to kill Banda.
Sam Cammack, Barajas' attorney, told jurors his client did not kill Banda, and that the father never left the crash site. Cammack described to jurors an accident scene in which Barajas, desperate to help his sons, was covered with their blood after he had tried to perform CPR on the boys.
"When police get there my client is doing what he was doing the whole time, trying to save his children's lives," Cammack said.
Legal experts said the case will be difficult to prosecute given the lack of hard evidence: no weapon was recovered, no witnesses identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative.
An even greater challenge for prosecutors could be overcoming sympathy in the community for the father. Many people in the town of Alvin where the tragedy occurred, 30 miles southeast of Houston, have supported Barajas. Some have said they might have done the same thing in a similar situation.
Hrach tried to minimize the absence of a murder weapon, saying that a bullet fragment from a .357 caliber weapon was found at the murder scene and that an open box with .357 caliber ammunition was found in Barajas' home.
The home security system at Barajas' house with cameras that would have shown the accident scene had been disabled, the prosecutor said.
Witnesses will testify that they saw Barajas leave the scene and then come back and approach Banda's vehicle, going up against the car, appearing to be hiding something, Hrach said.
Barajas' blood was found on the armrest and dashboard of Banda's car, Hrach said.
But Cammack tried to cast doubt on prosecutors' claims that Barajas was responsible by suggesting to jurors that various other people seen near Banda's vehicle after the wreck could have been responsible.
When 911 calls were played for jurors later Tuesday, Cammack tried to suggest Barajas would not have had enough time to shoot Banda.
On the calls, screaming can be heard in the background as an unidentified caller told a dispatcher a boy is "bleeding badly ... he's in half. It's bad."
While questioning dispatcher Grace Gambino, Cammack highlighted for jurors the timeline. The first 911 call came in at 11:33 p.m., a child was reported dead at 11:34 p.m., gunshots were heard at 11:35 p.m. and police had arrived at the scene and cleared it for EMS to come in at 11:40 p.m.
If convicted, Barajas faces up to life in prison.
At least 25 family members and friends of Barajas were in the courtroom, wearing buttons that said, "Forever in our hearts, David and Caleb Barajas" and with a picture of the two boys. At least 20 relatives and friends of Banda were also in the courtroom.
Before opening statements, Judge Terri Holder asked that family members take off the buttons, saying she did not want anything to influence the jury.
"This is a difficult case for everyone involved. Everyone in here has lost somebody they loved," she said.
Last edited by Homsar; 08-25-2014 at 10:25 PM.
I'd acquit. He is already spending the rest of his life in jail, dwelling every moment of every day over his two dead kids---besides, you can't slay someone's children and expect not to get put down in a fit of parental rage.
Shitty, terrible situation and in that position I might do the same. But I don't think I can condone it.
I woulda done the same thing
Thread: Vicodin, Cigarettes, and My Fake Tits - from the diary of the Megan Fox of Ohio
That's awful and you should feel bad.
02-19-2013 02:33 PM
Thread: The ethics of stealing video games
Your justification in life is merely self serving. Imagine if society was 100% people like you, fuck living in that place.
05-15-2015 05:31 AM
the idiot who plays blessed shield with no jenkebabobob or foote
Yeah, I have sympathy for the father, but I can't condone vigilante revenge-murders. Terrible situation all around.
If there ever was a perfect example of temporary insanity, that's the one.
Any father would lose his shit in that kind of situation.
I understand the father's action but at the same time i can't support it.
A war is coming, I've seen it in my dreams. Fires sweeping over the Earth, bodies in the streets, cities turned to dust... retaliation.
Hollywood is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until everything you love is dead.
With a little faith in the Lord, the dead can be resurrected (ever heard of Lazarus?). Violence is not the solution, praying is.
Most seem to be on the same page, I'm curious who would be upset at the man that killed your family? If my family was the drunk driver I wouldnt be upset at all personally
If I watched someone stab my 2 sons to death, I would kill the guy whether he was drunk or not. If the drunk person used a car to kill my 2 sons right in front of me....I'd do the same thing.
It depends on how the crash happened. If he was obviously drunk or could have easily avoided killing the kids then fuck him, he deserved to get shot. The problem with cases like this is that there could be similar cases where the driver was sober but a fault with the car or some other thing caused an accident. While the driver might still be responsible, he would not deserve execution.
I think that the jury should ignore the fact that his children were killed and focus solely whether or not the father shot the driver. If he did then find him guilty of murder and hope that the judge gives him the most lenient possible sentence for the crime.
I don't think I'd convict of murder, but voluntary manslaughter, yes. As far as I know, voluntary manslaughter in most states counts for things like catching someone in bed with your wife (And killing him right there, in the resulting fight) or molesting/raping a family member ect. I'd think this would count. He committed murder, but he was less culpable for his actions due to the extreme state of mind the provocateur of the original action caused.
But yeah, he would need to be punished. If only to deter stupid revenge killings in the future; shit like that can get out of hand quickly, and then people wind up dead who were innocent, or only "guilty" of an accident which they had little control over.
"Legal experts said the case will be difficult to prosecute given the lack of hard evidence: no weapon was recovered, no witnesses identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative."
"Witnesses will testify that they saw Barajas leave the scene and then come back and approach Banda's vehicle, going up against the car, appearing to be hiding something, Hrach said."
The details are incomplete and/or contradictory. Based on the story, a juror wouldn't even need to nullify this one.
Innocent. Assuming of course they could prove he did it, or he confessed. The only thing that gives me pause is that, sadly, he's partially to blame by running out of gas. Yeah it's not a crime to run out of gas and it's the drunk's fault but still, rural roads are very dangerous. People, including me, drive way too fast on them.
Im not sure about the full facts, obviously the man was drunk but if the drivers tires popped and went off road, not smelling like booze stumbling ect you think the father would have still been as vengeful?
I wouldn't convict the guy.
In fact, I'd probably buy him a beer.
I don't know what I'd do in that situation, but what blows my mind about this case is that the defense is claiming the father didn't kill the drunk driver. Whatever you say.
Reading the title of the thread, I figured the revenge killing took place some time after the accident. I could see why he would do that, but that would still be pre-meditated murder. However, since it happened just minutes after the accident, it's completely understandable that the father would be emotional enough to do the deed right then and there. Voluntary manslaughter, like Lithose said.
Last edited by Tanoomba; 08-25-2014 at 11:49 PM.
Roadside executions for all drunk drivers imo.
Given the way executions are going these days, a gunshot from the father is probably more humane.
If i was on the jury i would convince myself that no weapon and no witness leads creedence to reasonable doubt. I would acquit, but deep down i knew he did it.
Fine, we walked up and shot the guy. And? Why convince yourself of anything? You aren't under any legal obligation as a juror to do vote any way you decide to vote.
Plot twist: Dad was on PCP and his kids were already dead!
I doubt this is a first, but I'm impressed everybody is on the same side here.
He shot the guy within minutes of the crash. Just being in a car accident itself is enough to put a person into some kind of shock-based diminished mental state. Throw in two dead sons and it's likely his mental faculties weren't even in the same time zone as his meat body when he pasted that guy.
Yeah, we have laws to prevent feel good law enforcement. I know it won't make me popular, but this guy is guilty. Was he rightfully angry? Yup. He had perfect motivation to act as he did. However, one of the things that separates us from animals is impulse control. Work through the system, get the maximum sentence for this guy, and get a lot of counseling to help you cope.
Sounds like he was smart enough to leave a reasonable doubt. No way he does jail time.
I've got this feeling that the reason no weapon was recovered is because a kindly neighborhood police officer decided to not recover one.
I can't really fault him for doing what he did he still killed a person and if they can prove it he should be found guilty
How did he know the guy was drunk? Also running out of gas on a road does make him liable for any damage or injury caused by someone smashing their shit into his truck.
While I empathize with him, I can't say I'd acquit simply based on the fact that his kids died. If they used TE, I probably would assuming the story panned out. Claiming he didn't do it is sketchy though. It also seems like the only reason it was a good play in this case was because there was 'no evidence'.
How did he know the guy was drunk? Did he stumble out of the car with a bottle of JD and start gloating over how awesome it was?
Running out of gas? trying to play devils advocate because he should have know he was low on gas and was next to his house? Dude was drunk and killed 2 children, the father will blame himself the rest of his life for something that he shouldnt really feel that guilty about
Last edited by Homsar; 08-26-2014 at 01:56 AM.
And I find it problematic that you think being able to get away with it is something that separates us from animals. It's animalistic behaviour to murder out of anger or revenge. But whatever.
I don't wish anything bad on this guy, I think he's suffering quite enough. I want us to be aware of the slippery slope responses like this can create. That's all.
Doing something based on an idea of what should separate men from animals doesn't make you a better person. Making decisions that are backed up by "Rules are rules!!" is for stupid people who can't think on their own.
Plus, I'm ok with this opening the flood gates of people who kill someone's children in front of the parents and end up being killed as a result. Would not convict
A> They can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father did the shooting. In this situation, I'd convict, but not of murder. Manslaughter yes.
B> They can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the father did the shooting; there appears to be some contradictory evidence. If after hearing the evidence I wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the father did it, I'd acquit. Prosecutors need to make their case.
Edit to add: I would definitely have beaten the guy to death under the same circumstances.
We already distinguish between pre-meditated violent acts and acts performed in the heat of the moment. We've acknowledged that there are circumstances in which one can not be expected to behave rationally, and if watching your children die at the hands of a drunk driver is not one of those circumstances, I don't know what is.
HE SHOULD GET TO KILL THAT MAN'S FAMILY TOO, ITS ONLY FAIR AMIRITE!?!?!
Voluntary manslaughter (also referred to as third-degree murder), sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
Last edited by Palum; 08-26-2014 at 02:58 AM.
Arbitrary adherence to the rules in the face of all common sense is what separates us from the animals!
One of our laws is also innocent until proven guilty. So far he isn't outside the law, because he hasn't done anything. Legally speaking. I'm OK with that.
This is clearly premeditated murder. If the jury doesn't convict him of that, they might wanna brush up on their legal definitions.
Under the Model Penal Code, manslaughter includes:
•Homicide that would be murder, but "is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse."
So really, it depends heavily on the state we're discussing.
I could easily acquit or convict the guy depending on details. I'm just surprised how easily people go 'not guilty' BECAUSE THE CHILDREN!
This is kind of telling:
Sounds like the dude walked back to his house, loaded a revolver, came back and executed the guy a few minutes later. That's fucked up and definitely not 'heat of the moment' if that's the case.Witnesses will testify that they saw Barajas leave the scene and then come back and approach Banda's vehicle, going up against the car, appearing to be hiding something, Hrach said.
Last edited by Palum; 08-26-2014 at 03:18 AM.
based soley on the evidence i would convict or not, its not up to me to forgive this guy for his crimes. i can see both sides, some drunk kills my kids that fucker is going down. but did he know he was drunk? if dude kills my kids because of an accident that happened because my car pooped out at night on some back country road and dude couldnt stop in time, shit im more likely to off myself than someone else. as it stands, if the dead guy was drunk and the dad knew it and knew the accident would only have happened due to a drunks bad driving instead of my dumb ass not filling up the fucking gas tank when i goddamn know im running low and here i am taking a trip. even old cars have low fuel warning gauges. if all that then yeah i cant blame the dad for shooting him, i just dont think he should walk scott free. serve your time like a man. own your actions.
Last edited by Astr0Chuk; 08-26-2014 at 03:43 AM.
Tox reports are standard parts of autopsies and autopsies are a standard part of dying by gunshot. Yes, they can tell if he had alcohol in his system and in what amount. Forensic science is a wonderful thing. He was drunk.
Not really, they were pushing the truck, which means it was in neutral. 4000lbs slamming into a vehicle in neutral is a pretty good push.
Well, if it was in neutral then that doesn't really tell us how fast the dude was going. This whole story is weird.
Last edited by Palum; 08-26-2014 at 04:51 AM.
Semi related question;
Why dont we execute people by placing them in a chamber filled with nitrogen or helium or any other inert gas? Why do we go to the trouble to make up some weird complicated concoction to kill people?
I really don't understand the slippery slope argument. Do people really believe letting this guy off would cause havoc on the streets as everyone goes on killing sprees that nobody will ever be convicted of? Can't we just handle these on a case by case basis, like our justice system always has? Completely different hypothetical scenarios shouldn't take precedence over actual reality
I'd have a hard time convicting him given what is known.
Guilty. Kill him. Adults are responsible for their actions.
that article sucks
so the father is saying it was not him? that someone else showed up and shot the guy? a liar and a murderer. Nice
Edit: As far as the methods of execution, "cruel and unusual" is applied as an argument against the death penalty, and probably rightly so, so the methods try to have the appearance of the most benign ways to kill a person.
For my part I think that the french perfected it with the guillotine. The only thing I might do is use a modern alloy for the blade which can be heated enough to immediately cauterize the wound while remaining sharp enough to off with their heads in one stroke.
Gassing someone with a pure inert gas would be horrendous and it would take him ten minutes to die.
Last edited by Iannis; 08-26-2014 at 07:01 AM.
Its not even a slippery slope. It could not be more clear. Its axiomatic. Revenge killings, blood feuds, random expressions of violence against persons or property-- these are not permissible.
It should not require an explanation.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 08-26-2014 at 07:26 AM.
Well now you're just arguing what type of murder he's guilty of, not that he's innocent.
This is not permissible in a civilized society.
Edit: I don't think he should be executed for it either, and I don't know that he needs to spend 50 years in prison to repay his trespass. That's where his emotional impetus for the crime comes in, in his restitution and penance. That is a valid consideration which has a proper place. That place is not in deciding if a crime has even been committed in the first place.
Last edited by Iannis; 08-26-2014 at 07:32 AM.
And neither is getting black out drunk and murdering two kids. If you want to be protected by the laws and rules of a civilized society, then you must follow and abide by those rules. Dont expect others to be concerned or care what happens to you when what you do is an affront to everything our society is built around.
Either way our legal system essentially has a scale of wrongness it when comes to taking a human life. If murder 1 is at one end, what this guy did was at the exact opposite end.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 08-26-2014 at 07:38 AM.
Sure, I agree with you. People get away with murder pretty often.
That's not a very good argument to make murder legal, though. I think we disagree about that. I'm content to leave it to a jury and a judge. If they acquit a revenge killing I could understand it. I'd think they were wrong, obviously wrong, but I could understand it. It would do more to make me question the local police services than it would do to make me question the changeable whims of democratic justice.
Last edited by Iannis; 08-26-2014 at 07:39 AM.
If the end goal of the legal system is to bring a semblance of "justice" and maintain order in society, how would any of that be accomplished by this guy going to prison.
Last edited by Big Phoenix; 08-26-2014 at 07:47 AM.
Because he's still killed a guy who wasn't his to kill. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is literally that simple. The State holds the responsibility of executions to itself entirely, and it does not share that right just because something really fucked up happened. He has superceded the foundational authority of the State. You don't get a 1 man revolution. You put him in jail for the same reason that you put tax evaders in jail if absolutely nothing else.
There are other arguments but they are mainly religious.
Last edited by Iannis; 08-26-2014 at 07:59 AM.
There's a difference between what's right and justice. The first should always be the priority
Doesn't sound like there's enough evidence to sway a jury even if the dad circumstances were involved. At least based on the snippet I read.
It's not fucking fair that a drunk driver killed his kids to begin with. We completely obliterated fair at the instigation.
Originally Posted by supertouch
for those who asked:
i haven't sucked her penis but i have stroked it. it sounds odd but i don't view it as a masculine organ on her.
I've often thought DUI offenders get off far too easily. There should be a distinct difference between manslaughter caused by a genuine accident versus operator incapacitation brought on by self medication. I know far too many otherwise rational people who think nothing of driving while drunk.
I was actually hit by someone who *may* have been drinking this weekend; he looked it, for sure, and he was coming from 'dinner' at the local bar, but we didn't wait for police because nobody was hurt, the response time would have been over an hour (yay backwoods!), and he accepted full responsibility for the accident then and there, both to me and to the insurance company. He wasn't being a dick about it so I saw no reason to fuck him over as there was no doubt his insurance would be paying for everything. Plus it just so happened that a retired police officer was walking by the intersection, as well as a fire truck passing by, so the dude couldn't argue anyway as there were plenty of reliable witnesses who saw him ram me.
The entire back of my car got smashed, however, rear windshield exploded, it is a mess. If my little girl had been riding in her car seat in the back, she would have been seriously hurt or worse; I actually thought about it and realized that if something had happened to her, I would have killed that fucker then and there without a moment's hesitation. Instead, I let him off easy, secure in the knowledge he was replacing my car whether he liked it or not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)