PDA

View Full Version : Houston Man Kills Drunk Who Ran Over his Two Sons




AuH20
02-12-2013, 08:45 AM
If I'm on the jury, he's NOT GUILTY. If you want to play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277301/Texas-man-David-Barajas-charged-shooting-dead-drunk-driver-killed-sons-age-11-12.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

TonySutton
02-12-2013, 08:48 AM
Like this case


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE

pcosmar
02-12-2013, 08:49 AM
There is a reason that "Justifiable Homicide" is in the law books.

It is an option I have seen a judge use once. and perhaps should be more common.

see this as well,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404161-Shooting-in-Delaware&p=4869823&viewfull=1#post4869823

kathy88
02-12-2013, 08:50 AM
After the accident and shooting, the Barajas told KHOU 11 News Wednesday that someone has threatened a drive-by shooting at the family’s home, forcing the grieving family to go into hiding.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277301/Texas-man-David-Barajas-charged-shooting-dead-drunk-driver-killed-sons-age-11-12.html#ixzz2KhFMErTd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Wait, wut? Why aren't there 7 cops outside their home, and a nationwide manhunt complete with drones?

fisharmor
02-12-2013, 08:53 AM
Yeah I don't know what to think about the actual case.

But I do know that the odds that the Texas judiciary is going to make any sense of the case are about as good as my chances of growing tits and having a million-dollar pole-dancing career.

fr33
02-12-2013, 09:11 AM
I don't have a problem with it.

Carehn
02-12-2013, 09:46 AM
As the courts drift away from justice the people will start taking it into there own hands. Simple as that.

pcosmar
02-12-2013, 09:55 AM
As the courts drift away from justice the people will start taking it into there own hands. Simple as that.

That is where it was, before it was taken from them.
That is where it should be.


The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Chester Copperpot
02-12-2013, 09:58 AM
If I'm on the jury, he's NOT GUILTY. If you want to play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277301/Texas-man-David-Barajas-charged-shooting-dead-drunk-driver-killed-sons-age-11-12.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

yep not guilty IMO too

kcchiefs6465
02-12-2013, 10:04 AM
Like this case


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE
I wasn't expecting that. Meh, good riddance.