Posted on 02/12/2013 6:51:08 AM PST by Nickname
BRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas -
A Brazoria County grand jury has indicted a father for the murder of another man.
According to investigators, David Barajas shot and killed a drunk driver who hit and killed his two young sons.
(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...
Fatal shooting of driver after 2 boys killed in wreck remains a mystery
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2971921/posts
It is very possible he could get off light in some parts of Texas
This article has a little more detail:
Grieving father charged in shooting death of driver
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/21111145/2013/02/11/grieving-father-charged
“No one recovered a gun at the site of the crash, but people reported hearing gunshots fired after the accident.
Brazoria County investigators interviewed several witnesses who were present at the accident scene. Those witnesses said they observed David Barajas walk away from the accident site to his home and return to the area before approaching Banda’s car when the gunshots were fired.”
If I were on the Jury I would refuse to convict.
This is the only kind of honor killing that should be allowed.
If I were his lawyer, I’d de,amd a jury trial.
While the grand jury was probably right to indict, the trial jury is the appropriate place for his lawyers to achieve justice. I know I’d have a hard time convicting the father in this case.
If the father did shoot the driver, there is no avoiding the fact that that is murder. However, I don’t think he’ll be convicted because any jury would see this as a case of “temporary insanity” on the part of a parent who has just seen his two sons killed by a drunk driver.
I’m not saying I believe in the temporary insanity excuse per se, but if there is such a thing, this would be an instance of it.
I think they will have a very tough time finding a jury to convict this father with anything more than a couple of years in prison or possibly just some time in a medical/mental rehab facility.
Did he take the law into his own hands? Yes, but I’m not sure too many of us would not have done the same thing.
Alright, so this wasn’t some months-later vigilante justice. The dad watched his kids killed right in front of him by an obviously drunk guy, walked straight to his house, got the gun and shot the dude right there.
So no premeditation. Temporary insanity. This changes the whole story.
If I were on the jury, nullification would definitely be on the table!
I cannot imagine the unbearable grief he felt, seeing his sons killed and probably holding their lifeless bodies at the side of the road.
I hope this family is spared further torment.
Locally here in Austin (the city of Autism) they are seeing it different. They are faulting the dad for being careless having his kids pushing a truck on a dark road. Bad choice on dad’s part but the driver was drunk and never hit his brakes or tried to evade the truck. I cannot say I would not have done the same except I would not have had to walk home to get the weapon.
We have too many Yankees, foreigners, and California nuts here that refuse to assimilate and want to make us just like where they came.
Sounds like a ready made case for jury nullification.
I think that could happen too!
Don’t drink and drive. Because fathers of kids killed by drunk drivers might cap your ass.
A Latino driving drunk and killing someone? No way.
Since we don’t really have a law that provides a satisfactory outcome in such cases, he didn’t take the law into his own hands.
If I ended up on the jury, my vote would be time served.
We need more of this - much more.
Wish I could be on the jury.
This father may have invented a new charge; “Criminal Justifiable Homicide”. I certainly understand his actions.
As much as I feel for the father, I cannot abandon the concept of rule of law. It one man can extract his own justice in a case like this, where, exactly do we draw the line?
Christopher Dorner, for instance, has taken it on himself to right what he perceived to be an injustice. I recognize that the cases are not at all comparable, but where would you have us draw the line?
Not guilty. Justifiable homicide.
(Although the state should reimburse him the cost of the bullets)
I’ve always felt death was the appropriate punishment for drunk drivers who kill.
re: “Since we don’t really have a law that provides a satisfactory outcome in such cases, he didn’t take the law into his own hands.”
We DON’T have a law that provides a satisfactory outcome in such cases?? What does that mean?
I am totally empathetic to this father, and would have no problem letting him off with a very light sentence or medical/mental probation for awhile, but there is no doubt, assuming he did shoot the driver, that if he did so, he committed some degree of murder - we do have laws against murder - right? He did decide that the driver should die, he shot him, so, the father did take the law into his own hands in delivering what he thought was the appropriate sentence.
I think that’s the very definition of “taking the law into one’s own hands”.
There's no law that provides a satisfactory outcome to Mr. Kwan. Same thing here.
I agree. In the past, someone said that if you want to murder someone, do it with a car. The resulting sentences will always be light.
If you see this as a matter of rule of law instead of justice, I can only assume that you living in Massachusetts has distorted your common sense.
There continues to be a place for drawing and quartering in our world.
The father murdered the man who killed his sons.
His sentence, one day suspended.
Austin’s out of state libs need to be sent back to wherever they came from. They’re ruining TX. And to think Perry trotted himself to CA to bring in more. He’ll never again get my vote.
As for the father, he did what needed to be done. I’m betting this wasn’t the first time this guy drove drunk. Wonder how many times a lib judge has done nothing but slap his wrists on previous DUIs. Those judges have blood on their hands and should be made to step down.
If the prosecutor goes for a murder conviction he’s making a big mistake. At most I might vote guilty for manslaughter and then recommend probation. If murder was the only choice I would have no choice but to vote not guilty.
I have a friend who is closely associated with the Brazoria County DA office. She says that the opinions expressed within the office are quite close to many of the opinions shared here. They are not at all confident that a jury will side with the prosecution on this one.
To that end, the consensus is to get convictions on lesser included charges and give Barajas probation.
I hope it turns out that way.
Possibly six months community service, giving talks to drivers convicted of DUI offenses on the repercussions of driving under the influence.
Vigilante justice takes place when a justice system is broken. The justice system doesn’t want to take these drunks and throw the book at them.
When you enact vigilante justice, don’t get caught.
His two sons were 11 and 12 years old, and they were killed in front of him.
I think an awful lot of people would draw the line somewhere beyond this guy and somewhere this side of Dorner.
I think this case argues even more strongly for an outcome which recognizes that "normal" behavior may include killing a drunk driver who murders one's children. There would be good justification for believing that the courts would let the murderous drunk off lightly and that the situation could occur again.
There's a possible problem if the children were exposed to an unreasonable danger which might have resulted in their deaths from even a sober driver.
I wonder what the father thought the consequences of his action would be? I'm guessing that he gave it no thought at all.
As an emotional response, I agree 100%. Intellectually, a civil society cannot permit this kind of vengance. Civilization requires we restrain our impulses, even when our impulses fully justified and lead to a morally satisfactory conclusion.
This is actually a failure of government to perform its minimal duties. The victim, the driver, indusputably had a long record of reckless and/or drunk driving. If he had paid a price proportionate to the risk he represented initially, this would never have happened, and such incidents would be far more rare.
Currently, irresponsible, reckless and criminal behavior is far too lightly punished in America these days. I understand why some citizens want to take the law into their own hands.
re: “The man’s children were murdered in front of him. There is no law that provides a satisfactory outcome to that.”
Look, I’m not trying to argue with you. You say the man’s sons were “murdered” in front of him. Therefore it sounds like you believe someone who kills someone else while driving intoxicated is the same thing as premeditated murder in the first degree and should be given the death penalty.
We are also assuming that the father knew beyond a reasonable doubt the the driver who killed his sons was drunk - the coroner’s report indicated intoxication, but that came out later - what if the driver hadn’t been intoxicated? Who decides that? A witness or family member on the scene?
And, it sounds like you believe that immediate family members of the “murdered” family member have the right to kill the person who killed that family member right then and there - no test to see if the guilty person is intoxicated, no trial, no judge, no jury, just carry out the sentence of death right on the spot after the accident?
How is that not taking the law into one’s own hand?
You say, “There is no law that provides a satisfactory outcome to that.” What kind of a law would you think would provide a satisfactory outcome? Just curious.
And, don’t get me wrong - if the driver was intoxicated and everthing happened just as it says in the story, I have no empathy for the drunk driver, and if the father is charged with murder in the second degree or for manslaughter - I would acquit him or give him the lightest possible sentence allowable.
However, I still think, even though emotionally I’m wanting to completely justify what the father did - it still seems wrong to just decide on one’s own what happened, what the circumstances were, decide innocence or guilt on the spot, and carry out a sentence whatever one feels is appropriate.
Unbelievable ~ you think there’s a possibility of a law that will give something like this a better outcome?
re: “Unbelievable ~ you think there’s a possibility of a law that will give something like this a better outcome?”
No, I think that’s what you believe. You said the father did not take the law into his own hands because there was no law that related to what happened in this case.
You said, and I quote, “Since we don’t really have a law that provides a satisfactory outcome in such cases, he didn’t take the law into his own hands.”
What I want to know from YOU is - what kind of law WOULD be satisfactory to YOU in such cases.
And, you keep dodging the question - Please explain how what this father did was NOT taking the law into his own hands? He acted as judge, juror, and executioner.
“satisfactory’ does not mean ‘related’ ~
If I was on the jury, no way would I vote to convict.
Case closed.
re: ““satisfactory’ does not mean ‘related’ ~”
Ok. Whatever you say.
Like!
Yep. And why did that fool drive cross country from Texas to Delaware to kill 2 and injure others before killing himself? Two words: Family Court. Another failure of our justice system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.