Texas Dad Accused of Murdering Drunk Driver Who Killed Kids

[QuickZ06]

The ole saying fits for this one, seems an eye for an eye.


A Texas father, who watched a drunk driver strike and kill his two young sons, has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting the driver in the head moments after the accident.

David Barajas, 31, was charged with murder on Monday, more than two months after his sons David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11, were killed steps from their home on a rural road outside Houston on Dec. 7.

Bond was set at $450,000, police said.

Barajas and his sons were pushing the family's disabled pickup truck toward their home late that night, as the boys' mother and two younger siblings sat inside, according to a police report released by the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department.

They were struck by Jose Banda, 20, the driver of a Chevy Malibu, instantly killing David Jr. and critically injuring Caleb, who later died at a hospital.

"Banda was determined to be intoxicated at the time of the crash," police said in their report.

When cops arrived on the scene, they noticed something else about Banda. He had been shot in the head. But they could not immediately find the murder weapon.

"Investigators recovered a projectile from inside of the vehicle that Jose Banda's was shot in. Investigators were unable to match that projectile to a weapon because no weapons were recovered at the scene," according the sheriff's department.

Witnesses at the scene watched Barajas walk to his home and allegedly retrieve the gun with which he shot Banda, according to a police report. When police searched the home, they found a pistol holster and ammunition, but no firearm.

"Investigators are currently awaiting results of gunshot residue tests which were collected at the scene," police said. On Friday, a grand jury found there was enough evidence that Barajas could be charged.

According to authorities, he does not yet have an attorney.

"It really hurt a lot of us," Jose Roman, a family friend of Barajas, told ABC affiliate KTRK-TV about the death of the boys and the indictment of their father.

The boys, both fans of the Houston Texans, were buried last month. Many of the mourners at their funeral wore Texans jerseys.

But the family of the slain driver believes justice must be done.

"It was an accident. He didn't purposely do that,' Janie Tellez told KTRK. "Whoever did it is getting away with murdering my nephew. He deserves justice."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-dad-accused-murdering-drunk-driver-killed-kids/story?id=18477907

[QuickZ06]

Questions that I have, how intoxicated was the guy, did the truck that was disabled have its flashers on or lights to signal they were broke down, would people feel the same if it was a lady putting on makeup that was not paying attention or a male that was texting while driving?

[TywinLannister]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404446-Dad-Murders-Drunk-Driver-Who-Killed-His-Kids-Say-Cops

[kathy88]

Questions that I have, how intoxicated was the guy, did the truck that was disabled have its flashers on or lights to signal they were broke down, would people feel the same if it was a lady putting on makeup that was not paying attention?

Yeah, I always put on makeup while I drive. SMH.

[angelatc]

Eh, it was an accident. I don't think it matters that the guy may have been drunk. But I don't think the shooter needs to go to prison. Unless he has a long history of gang / mafia violence already, he's not a danger to society. He's just a guy that went crazy when the unthinkable happened.

[Darguth]

Eh, it was an accident. I don't think it matters that the guy may have been drunk. But I don't think the shooter needs to go to prison. Unless he has a long history of gang / mafia violence already, he's not a danger to society. He's just a guy that went crazy when the unthinkable happened.

Same. Prison should only ever (if ever) be used to imprison people that are legitimately uncontrollable dangers to those around them. This guy isn't, he just went berserk when someone killed his sons. Unless you plan on killing off his family members, I don't consider him a societal threat.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Same. Prison should only ever (if ever) be used to imprison people that are legitimately uncontrollable dangers to those around them. This guy isn't, he just went berserk when someone killed his sons. Unless you plan on killing off his family members, I don't consider him a societal threat.

Exactly, he needs counseling.
Anyone who just saw their kids get critically injured or killed in an accident like this would have an unpredictable reaction.
I don't think the man is a social threat, however, violence is to be used in self-defense only. This was not self-defense.

[TywinLannister]

There has to be some form of punishment in order to maintain a deterrent.

[pacodever]

There has to be some form of punishment in order to maintain a deterrent.

There is none. I would have done the same.

[TywinLannister]

There is none. I would have done the same.

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

[QuickZ06]

Yeah, I always put on makeup while I drive. SMH.

Are you shaking your head at my comment or the fact it is dumb to put on makeup while driving and I am glad you are not one to do that but many women do in fact but I think (or at least should) i'm preaching to the choir.

[fr33]

If I were on the jury I could not convict him of murder.

[QuickZ06]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404446-Dad-Murders-Drunk-Driver-Who-Killed-His-Kids-Say-Cops

Did a search but nothing came up, can we get a merge mod? GP gets more traffic anyways.

[squarepusher]

Did a search but nothing came up, can we get a merge mod? GP gets more traffic anyways.

search feature is pretty fail here, ive done the same thing before

[jmdrake]

From a legal standpoint he would have been better off if he had killed the drunk driver immediately so his lawyer could have argued "crime of passion" and gone for manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder. Not that I'm advocating anybody do that of course.

[Pericles]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

Probably a much greater deterrent to drunk driving than MADD.

[XNavyNuke]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

As spoken like someone whose has never experienced the flood of various neurotransmitters during the acute grief associated with having their child die in their arms. You have no idea how long it takes for the red fog to lift. F-U. Manslaughter unless he has a background of multiple violent felonies, then 2nd worst case. Of course, a good prosecutor would screen a person like me out of the jury pool in a nanosecond. Maybe the DA will get lucky and find himself thirteen TL's for the jury.

XNN

[jbauer]

Eye for an eye. This wasn't an accident this was a drunk driver who killed 2 boys the guy gets what he gives.

[pacodever]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

Most? Maybe, I couldn't possibly speak to another parent's reaction but his would not be outside of what I would consider normal for any father or human being.

What are you suggesting? A new law against fathers killing the murderer of their children moments after it happens ? Or that he should be prosecuted under already existing law (which obviously did not serve as deterrent in this case)?

Like I said, there would be no law or punishment you could imagine that would stop this particular case and others like it from happening.

This guy is not a danger to society. Tragic event, but justice will not be served by putting this guy in prison.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Same. Prison should only ever (if ever) be used to imprison people that are legitimately uncontrollable dangers to those around them. This guy isn't, he just went berserk when someone killed his sons. Unless you plan on killing off his family members, I don't consider him a societal threat.

Really? You think people should get freebies? They can murder whomever they want and off scot-free, as long they're not really a threat to anyone else? :rolleyes:

[XNavyNuke]

Looked at the comments on the original story back in December. Drunk driving suspect fatally shot after crash, officials say (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Drunk-driving-suspect-fatally-shot-after-crash-4106270.php) The DA might just have a difficult time finding those twelve angry jurors. The weight was going against the driver even before the blood alcohol levels were released by the coroner.

XNN

[jmdrake]

Looked at the comments on the original story back in December. Drunk driving suspect fatally shot after crash, officials say (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Drunk-driving-suspect-fatally-shot-after-crash-4106270.php) The DA might just have a difficult time finding those twelve angry jurors. The weight was going against the driver even before the blood alcohol levels were released by the coroner.

XNN

I don't think finding 12 angry jurors will be a problem. Just they'll be angry and the wrong victim as far as the DA is concerned.

[TywinLannister]

Like I said, there would be no law or punishment you could imagine that would stop this particular case and others like it from happening.


If that were true everyone who had someone get killed by a drunk driver would have killed the driver, which obviously is not the case.

He should not be punished the same way as any cold blooded murderer should. 2nd degree murder, maybe manslaughter. 5-10 years. That's just my guess at what might happen, probably as fair as you can get.

I don't like it. I feel bad for the guy, but at the same time, you can't just go around shooting people. The drunk driver had a family too. I don't feel particularly sorry for the drunk driver, but I do feel sorry for his family. I'm guessing if someone you love made a mistake like this, you would prefer they not be shot on the spot.

[jmdrake]

As spoken like someone whose has never experienced the flood of various neurotransmitters during the acute grief associated with having their child die in their arms. You have no idea how long it takes for the red fog to lift. F-U. Manslaughter unless he has a background of multiple violent felonies, then 2nd worst case. Of course, a good prosecutor would screen a person like me out of the jury pool in a nanosecond. Maybe the DA will get lucky and find himself thirteen TL's for the jury.

XNN

Hmmmm....interesting point. Maybe the defense attorney should bring in a PTSD expert?

[QuickZ06]

I have a friend who I still keep in touch with that got ran over by an old man when he was younger, almost died. His dad was very emotional but never thought to kill the old man responsible, he was a cop as well. I just don't see how adding another death would make this all better, unless his peers (trial by jury) gave him the death sentence after being convicted. So does the father of the young man that got shot deserve to get revenge since he has now lost a son as well? It is one of the most emotional situations that someone could ever experience and for me to say I totally understand all this is a lie, I don't. What's done is done and now the courts and his peers will decided this mans fate.

[TywinLannister]

I would also add that the point of still punishing the person is not to stop people who are suffering from diminished capacity from committing a crime - if they are truly insane, no law will stop them. The point of it is to deter the person who is NOT insane, but thinks they can commit a crime and get away with it without any punishment by claiming temporary insanity. If that person thinks "Even if they find me crazy, I'm going to do 5-10 years" he probably will reconsider.

[Darguth]

Really? You think people should get freebies? They can murder whomever they want and off scot-free, as long they're not really a threat to anyone else? :rolleyes:

Good attempt at a straw man, but that's not what I said. Running around shooting up people at will is not the same as killing the man--in the heat of the moment--that just caused the death of your two sons through direct and intentional negligence. I am not stating there should be no ramifications, as you imply I am, but rather that this is not a unjustified, malicious homicide (murder) worthy of imprisonment. As I said, imprisonment should only be used (if ever) as a societal tool against societal threats. This man is not a societal threat.

[Darguth]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

Imagine that, if you couldn't go around killing people through your gross negligence just to "have a good time" (a.k.a. "drunk driving") without fear of swift and violent retribution by your victims then surprise-surprise people wouldn't drive drunk nearly as much as they do today.

That's the societal repercussion that would exist without the intervention of state force which allows such perpetrators to continue their dangerous behavior while diminishing the capability of society to protect itself from wanton, destructive behavior.

It's exactly like how we enable other violent crimes through gun control and the like. Restricting the ability of society to protect itself enables criminal behavior.

[TywinLannister]

Good attempt at a straw man, but that's not what I said. Running around shooting up people at will is not the same as killing the man--in the heat of the moment--that just caused the death of your two sons through direct and intentional negligence. I am not stating there should be no ramifications, as you imply I am, but rather that this is not a unjustified, malicious homicide (murder) worthy of imprisonment. As I said, imprisonment should only be used (if ever) as a societal tool against societal threats. This man is not a societal threat.

Being a threat to society is not the only factor.

I just saw a case where they arrested a very old woman for killing her husband back in the 70's. The lady is probably feeble and in a wheel chair. She is certainly not a threat to society. But she deserves to be prosecuted and imprisoned for taking a man's life.

[TywinLannister]

Imagine that, if you couldn't go around killing people through your gross negligence just to "have a good time" (a.k.a. "drunk driving") without fear of swift and violent retribution by your victims then surprise-surprise people wouldn't drive drunk nearly as much as they do today.



I'm not sure I want to live in a world like that. Not to mention all the people who would be killed by mistake based on a rush to judgment.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

As I said, imprisonment should only be used (if ever) as a societal tool against societal threats. This man is not a societal threat.

That's ridiculous. Most people who murder wouldn't become serial killers if you left them alone.

Even if someone is never going to harm another person, they have to pay for the very serious thing they did. And no, "paying for" is not group counseling.

[kcchiefs6465]

Imagine that, if you couldn't go around killing people through your gross negligence just to "have a good time" (a.k.a. "drunk driving") without fear of swift and violent retribution by your victims then surprise-surprise people wouldn't drive drunk nearly as much as they do today.

That's the societal repercussion that would exist without the intervention of state force which allows such perpetrators to continue their dangerous behavior while diminishing the capability of society to protect itself from wanton, destructive behavior.

It's exactly like how we enable other violent crimes through gun control and the like. Restricting the ability of society to protect itself enables criminal behavior.
Are you sure alcohol even played a factor in this crash? There are so many unanswered questions that I really couldn't say what the punishment, if any, should be. (For one, I would like to know what his BAC was) I'd probably do that same thing though.

[kcchiefs6465]

That's ridiculous. Most people who murder wouldn't become serial killers if you left them alone.

Even if someone is never going to harm another person, they have to pay for the very serious thing they did. And no, "paying for" is not group counseling.
In the other thread there is a good example of a man executing a person who kidnapped and presumably molested his son. Same with the father who beat the man to death that he found molesting his daughter. The first was indicted and convicted, given 5 years probation, the second one no jury would indict. I don't know the facts in this case, aside from a man striking two kids, so I don't think I could speculate on what his punishment should be. If any of the previous cases happened to children of mine they would probably be lucky to get off with just that.

[Darguth]

Being a threat to society is not the only factor.

I just saw a case where they arrested a very old woman for killing her husband back in the 70's. The lady is probably feeble and in a wheel chair. She is certainly not a threat to society. But she deserves to be prosecuted and imprisoned for taking a man's life.


That's ridiculous. Most people who murder wouldn't become serial killers if you left them alone.

Even if someone is never going to harm another person, they have to pay for the very serious thing they did. And no, "paying for" is not group counseling.

Making someone "pay for" an action simply because it's labeled a crime in some statutory law is not inherently an act of justice, as you both seem to suggest. Which is what we should be more concerned with.

I see no justice for society as a whole to be had by imprisoning a man in this scenario (making the assumptions that have been made based upon the limited information provided, of course if the details change the analysis changes).

If we simply want to make the father "pay for" his actions via imprisonment, what justice does this bring? At most you provide some ephemeral and disconnected feeling of retribution for the loved ones of the man he killed. However, that it counteracted by the family that now loses a husband and a father, whose only offense was striking out against someone that threatened and harmed his family's well-being first.

Imprisoning someone to make certain people "feel better" at the expense of others is not justice and we cannot base an ethical justice system upon that premise.

Additionally imprisonment, particularly in America, has little-to-nothing to do with any form of rehabilitation. You are just sent to rot for a few years on the taxpayer's dime. This is punishment, not justice. They are not one and the same.

A just scenario would be one that leads the damaged parties (the families of the boys and the killed driver) to forgiveness and reconciliation with both the actions of that night and one another. A just scenario could also remove violent people form society if they can be proven a threat to society as a whole. I think one would have a very hard time making that case when it comes to the father in this scenario (though not as hard of a case for the driver).

This means that the families need arbitration, counseling, and eventually reconciliation to reach a just and permanent outcome. Imprisonment is not needed and would actually be detrimental to all of those goals necessary for a just outcome, nor is it needed to remove a societal threat.

The "people have to pay for criminal actions" is an idiotic and childish view of what a justice system should look like. It is the adult, state-indoctrinated version of biting your little sister in the back seat because she pinched you.

[RonPaulMall]

There is none. I would have done the same.

And if I were the son or daughter of the person you just murdered in cold blood, I'd wait for you outside your house and gun you down the very next morning. Maybe you have some relatives that will then go after me. And so on, and so on. This guy is a murderer. Period. Do you know how many people die on the roads of America every day? I don't want to live in a society where it is a murder free for all against anyone who can be perceived by a relative (without any investigation or evidence even) as "responsible" for the accident. According to what I read, the father had these kids pushing a car down an unlit road without any kind of emergency lights, flares, or anything else. If it turns out the kids were the ones at fault for the accident, would the driver have been justified in shooting the Dad?

[Anti Federalist]

Lots of defense for this man.

Hope that remains when somebody clips some cops in retribution for killing their husband/wife/mother/brother/kids in some fucked up SWAT raid.

[John F Kennedy III]

I don't see anything wrong with what the father did.

[Demigod]

I understand why he killed him,should he go to jail for it,absolutely.If he went to court and they gave the driver something stupid like a few years in jail then I would support him if he killed everyone in the room.But you have to let it go trough the system first,if the system fails then do what you want to do in my opinion.

[Darguth]

And if I were the son or daughter of the person you just murdered in cold blood, I'd wait for you outside your house and gun you down the very next morning. Maybe you have some relatives that will then go after me. And so on, and so on. This guy is a murderer. Period. Do you know how many people die on the roads of America every day? I don't want to live in a society where it is a murder free for all against anyone who can be perceived by a relative (without any investigation or evidence even) as "responsible" for the accident.

Spoken like a true statist.

You're arguing that individuals are incapable of forming and implementing the means to curb unmitigated violence without the intervention of state force and violence as well. Look to even just not-so-distant American history and you can see that you are wrong. In some of the more "lawless" times and regions you saw such family-based revenge killings as you described. Few of them involved much, if any, "spillover" violence, damage, or death outside of the families that were voluntarily engaging in the feuds.

And y'know what? It was still a helluva lot less violent than the police state we have to day enforcing your views on others on your behalf.

[Pericles]

I would also add that the point of still punishing the person is not to stop people who are suffering from diminished capacity from committing a crime - if they are truly insane, no law will stop them. The point of it is to deter the person who is NOT insane, but thinks they can commit a crime and get away with it without any punishment by claiming temporary insanity. If that person thinks "Even if they find me crazy, I'm going to do 5-10 years" he probably will reconsider.
The father of the two dead boys did prevent a repeat offense. The 20 year old drunk (21 still being legal age to consume) was well on the road (pun intended) to a trail of no good. People who DUI tend to do it repeatedly.

[John F Kennedy III]

Lots of defense for this man.

Hope that remains when somebody clips some cops in retribution for killing their husband/wife/mother/brother/kids in some fucked up SWAT raid.

There would be nothing wrong with that either.

[TywinLannister]

Making someone "pay for" an action simply because it's labeled a crime in some statutory law is not inherently an act of justice, as you both seem to suggest. Which is what we should be more concerned with.

I see no justice for society as a whole to be had by imprisoning a man in this scenario (making the assumptions that have been made based upon the limited information provided, of course if the details change the analysis changes).

If we simply want to make the father "pay for" his actions via imprisonment, what justice does this bring? At most you provide some ephemeral and disconnected feeling of retribution for the loved ones of the man he killed. However, that it counteracted by the family that now loses a husband and a father, whose only offense was striking out against someone that threatened and harmed his family's well-being first.

Imprisoning someone to make certain people "feel better" at the expense of others is not justice and we cannot base an ethical justice system upon that premise.

Additionally imprisonment, particularly in America, has little-to-nothing to do with any form of rehabilitation. You are just sent to rot for a few years on the taxpayer's dime. This is punishment, not justice. They are not one and the same.

A just scenario would be one that leads the damaged parties (the families of the boys and the killed driver) to forgiveness and reconciliation with both the actions of that night and one another. A just scenario could also remove violent people form society if they can be proven a threat to society as a whole. I think one would have a very hard time making that case when it comes to the father in this scenario (though not as hard of a case for the driver).

This means that the families need arbitration, counseling, and eventually reconciliation to reach a just and permanent outcome. Imprisonment is not needed and would actually be detrimental to all of those goals necessary for a just outcome, nor is it needed to remove a societal threat.

The "people have to pay for criminal actions" is an idiotic and childish view of what a justice system should look like. It is the adult, state-indoctrinated version of biting your little sister in the back seat because she pinched you.


The point of punishment is to serve as a deterrent to potential criminals.

[jmdrake]

The father of the two dead boys did prevent a repeat offense. The 20 year old drunk (21 still being legal age to consume) was well on the road (pun intended) to a trail of no good. People who DUI tend to do it repeatedly.

Well if the main goal was to keep the drunk from driving again he could have gouged the drunk's eyes out. Then the drunk would still be alive and the father wouldn't be facing the death penalty. Just sayin' (And no I'm not advocating that either).

[TywinLannister]

The father of the two dead boys did prevent a repeat offense. The 20 year old drunk (21 still being legal age to consume) was well on the road (pun intended) to a trail of no good. People who DUI tend to do it repeatedly.

Sort of like the Department Of Pre-crime? Now we are going to punish people for what they MIGHT do in the future?

[Pericles]

Well if the main goal was to keep the drunk from driving again he could have gouged the drunk's eyes out. Then the drunk would still be alive and the father wouldn't be facing the death penalty. Just sayin' (And no I'm not advocating that either).

Pretty sure that was not the main goal. Just a side benefit.

[Pericles]

Sort of like the Department Of Pre-crime? Now we are going to punish people for what they MIGHT do in the future?
He had already killed two people, and killing one is all it takes is one for me to be OK with the father's actions.

How many executed murderers have been repeat offenders? Having said that, I believe in a higher standard that we now have for the death penalty.

[CaptainAmerica]

Drunk drivers suck,and to they think they are invincible to this kind of stuff.

[Darguth]

The point of punishment is to serve as a deterrent to potential criminals.

And please tell me how well that works: fugitive slave laws, prohibition, the war on drugs, prostitution, etc. Tell me how well capital punishment deters violent crimes like murder? Oh, wait, that's right: it doesn't.

The threat of state violence will deter some people from acting in a certain way. That does not make it just, nor does it make society safer or better.

[kcchiefs6465]

The father of the two dead boys did prevent a repeat offense. The 20 year old drunk (21 still being legal age to consume) was well on the road (pun intended) to a trail of no good. People who DUI tend to do it repeatedly.
Really? How many DUI drivers have run over kids? How many of those accidents were the fault of the children running into the road? How many of those could have been prevented should they not have been drinking? Your assessment that because this man was 20 years old the man was well within right to execute him as a means of preventing similar cases is incredible. I would assume you were referring to running over more kids correct? Not just any 'drunk driver' (over .08 in most states) should be executed to prevent further 'crimes'?

[John F Kennedy III]

Pretty sure that was not the main goal. Just a side benefit.

Yeah this.

[kcchiefs6465]

He had already killed two people, and killing one is all it takes is one for me to be OK with the father's actions.

How many executed murderers have been repeat offenders? Having said that, I believe in a higher standard that we now have for the death penalty.
Ahh. I am starting to see where you are coming from. What was this man's BAC? Was he 'legally drunk?' What safety laws were violated by the father? Did he have blinkers on? How busy was the street? Was a tow unmanagable? Where is your evidence.. or rather what was the father's evidence? Was the man sleeping at the wheel? Or did the car smell like alcohol? How does arbitralily executing a man fit into a liberty platform?

[kcchiefs6465]

Drunk drivers suck,and to they think they are invincible to this kind of stuff.
Do you advocate arbitralily killing sleepy drivers? What if by chance, a kid runs from between a car into the road and a driver with a BAC of .09 runs him over and kills him. Is it now acceptable to kill him on sight? What evidence do you have that this man was even drunk?

[Pericles]

Ahh. I am starting to see where you are coming from. What was this man's BAC? Was he 'legally drunk?' What safety laws were violated by the father? Did he have blinkers on? How busy was the street? Was a tow unmanagable? Where is your evidence.. or rather what was the father's evidence? Was the man sleeping at the wheel? Or did the car smell like alcohol? How does arbitralily executing a man fit into a liberty platform?

If the kids are returned to the family, none the worse from wear, then restitution has been made.

[kcchiefs6465]

If the kids are returned to the family, none the worse from wear, then restitution has been made.
I am a little confused as to what exactly you are saying here. Can you please elaborate?

[Pericles]

I am a little confused as to what exactly you are saying here. Can you please elaborate?

From a libertarian perspective, a family suffered the loss of two sons (I don't give a rat's donkey if Rothbard thinks the father had property rights in his children or not). How does the person who deprived the two kids of their lives make restitution to those kids? To the family? He can't, so he pays with his life.

It makes people pretty damn careful about what they do, or ends the destruction they leave behind them as soon as possible.

[John F Kennedy III]

From a libertarian perspective, a family suffered the loss of two sons (I don't give a rat's donkey if Rothbard thinks the father had property rights in his children or not). How does the person who deprived the two kids of their lives make restitution to those kids? To the family? He can't, so he pays with his life.

It makes people pretty damn careful about what they do, or ends the destruction they leave behind them as soon as possible.


Absolutely. This is how it should be in a free society.

[kcchiefs6465]

How does the person who deprived the two kids of their lives make restitution to those kids? To the family? He can't, so he pays with his life.
That's what I thought you were saying. The same could be said of David Barajas. He deprived Jose Banda's parents of their kid. Should they have the right or even obligation to now exact revenge against David Barajas? And if they did, would David Barajas parents then have that same right? Vendettas went on for decades because of this. Courts helped to thwart this. Yes, punishment is not always justice. That does not mean you have biased parties arbitralily determine fate over perceived evidence. (if he smelled like alcohol, for example)

[kcchiefs6465]

Absolutely. This is how it should be in a free society.
A free society?... or a civil Republic? And why can't we have a free, civil Republic?

[Darguth]

Vendettas went on for decades because of this.

And abuse and violence went on for even longer when individuals surrendered judgment to the state. Droit du seigneur was the law of the land across much of feudal Europe. There was no route for restitution to this injustice and it went on far longer than most family feuds/vendettas.

Neither system is perfect but, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."


Courts helped to thwart this. Yes, punishment is not always justice. That does not mean you have biased parties arbitralily determine fate over perceived evidence. (if he smelled like alcohol, for example)

And what would you propose when the courts fail, as they often do, to provide real justice? Must individuals sacrifice their power to act out of some supposed assumption that the state is always right? Must they sacrifice the rest of their lives trying to correct a broken and flawed state system that refuses them justice?

[AuH20]

From a libertarian perspective, a family suffered the loss of two sons (I don't give a rat's donkey if Rothbard thinks the father had property rights in his children or not). How does the person who deprived the two kids of their lives make restitution to those kids? To the family? He can't, so he pays with his life.

It makes people pretty damn careful about what they do, or ends the destruction they leave behind them as soon as possible.

Especially when this cretin's BAC (0.175) was double the limit. Banda was heavily intoxicated.

[asurfaholic]

I would also add that the point of still punishing the person is not to stop people who are suffering from diminished capacity from committing a crime - if they are truly insane, no law will stop them. The point of it is to deter the person who is NOT insane, but thinks they can commit a crime and get away with it without any punishment by claiming temporary insanity. If that person thinks "Even if they find me crazy, I'm going to do 5-10 years" he probably will reconsider.

Right, because when dad saw his kids get smashed up by a car, and out stumbles someone legitimatly drunk, dad is going to be carefully considering all the possible outcomes of all the possible reactions. Then he calmly and coolheadedly picks the most "correct" option.

Fuck that. If someone chooses to drive drunk, and accidently crashes killing someone(two) - that is a aggravated vehicular manslaughter. Its damn pretty much murder. And dad took care of that murderer. I hope the jury laughs at the prosecution and sends dad back home.

[jmdrake]

Pretty sure that was not the main goal. Just a side benefit.

Yeah. Revenge was clearly the primary motive IMO. As the Ferringhi from Star Trek TNG say "There is no profit in revenge." Still, I would think leaving someone blinded for the rest of his life might in someways be more vengeful than a quick death. And there's less legal implications. But what's done is done. I hope this dad didn't have any other kids.

[kcchiefs6465]

And abuse and violence went on for even longer when individuals surrendered judgment to the state. Droit du seigneur was the law of the land across much of feudal Europe. There was no recompense to this justice and it went on far longer than most family feuds/vendettas.

Neither system is perfect but, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

In previous draconian systems yes, cruel and unusal punishment was often the norm. Here, for example, we do not have racks, public caning, etc. I agree that it was/is a problem in certain places, though I think our current system, while not perfect, solved a lot of those problems. One example of this and the problems that arise when individuals are protected by the Law to impose punishments they see fit was that of lynchings. Not too long ago democracy truly triumphed in some areas. If the majority wanted to kill you, by any means they wished, you were arbitrarily killed. I like the idea that we are a Republic, ruled and protected by an equal set of laws.



And what would you propose when the courts fail, as they often do, to provide real justice? Must individuals sacrifice their power to act out of some supposed assumption that the state is always right? Must they sacrifice the rest of their lives trying to correct a broken and flawed state system that refuses them justice?
That would depend on an individual case by case. The man who caught a man raping his young daughter, was well within right in my eyes, to beat the man mercilessly. One can only expect to do the same. The point is not that justice may need to be exacted by an individual should the state fail, but that current courts should be presented evidence and your peers should be able to hear it. I understand a lot of the problems with our current system and am not excusing them, but truth be told, I don't believe a lot of people are quite ready to exact justice as they see fit. And the 'justice' they see fit, or would end up resorting to when justice is not able to be attained through physical means, is not justice at all.

[Darguth]

One example of this and the problems that arise when individuals are protected by the Law to impose punishments they see fit was that of lynchings. Not too long ago democracy truly triumphed in some areas. If the majority wanted to kill you, by any means they wished, you were arbitrarily killed. I like the idea that we are a Republic, ruled and protected by an equal set of laws.

Except this is more or less still the case today. If the majority of people want you "punished" for imbibing a controlled substance into your own body, they can do so through the state construct we call a court. The fact that there is some kind of "unanimous" opinion among the selected just gives credibility to the unjust act of the state.

You yourself refer to this with lynching in the South. Juries and laws did nothing to curtail systemic injustices. Had black people been able to respond in equal force, without fear of overwhelming state retribution, that would have curbed the racial injustices long before the state (kinda) did.

[Pericles]

In previous draconian systems yes, cruel and unusal punishment was often the norm. Here, for example, we do not have racks, public caning, etc. I agree that it was/is a problem in certain places, though I think our current system, while not perfect, solved a lot of those problems. One example of this and the problems that arise when individuals are protected by the Law to impose punishments they see fit was that of lynchings. Not too long ago democracy truly triumphed in some areas. If the majority wanted to kill you, by any means they wished, you were arbitrarily killed. I like the idea that we are a Republic, ruled and protected by an equal set of laws.


That would depend on an individual case by case. The man who caught a man raping his young daughter, was well within right in my eyes, to beat the man mercilessly. One can only expect to do the same. The point is not that justice may need to be exacted by an individual should the state fail, but that current courts should be presented evidence and your peers should be able to hear it. I understand a lot of the problems with our current system and am not excusing them, but truth be told, I don't believe a lot of people are quite ready to exact justice as they see fit. And the 'justice' they see fit, or would end up resorting to when justice is not able to be attained through physical means, is not justice at all.

One thing I would submit for consideration is that if the legal system does not deliver justice, it loses legitimacy. For any number of reasons, there is probably more than a single digit percentage of the population that has come to that conclusion that the link between justice and the legal system is badly broken.

[TywinLannister]

Right, because when dad saw his kids get smashed up by a car, and out stumbles someone legitimatly drunk, dad is going to be carefully considering all the possible outcomes of all the possible reactions. Then he calmly and coolheadedly picks the most "correct" option.


Did you even read the quote of mine you just posted? The rational for punishing this behavior (albeit a lesser punishment) is not to stop people like the children's father. It is in place to deter people who are in control of their faculties from committing violent acts, knowing that they would likely escape punishment by claiming temporary insanity. Which seems to work pretty well, considering that 99.9% of people who have a loved one killed by a drunk driver don't go out and kill the person.


I hope the jury laughs at the prosecution and sends dad back home.
I won't lose any sleep if a jury sets him free. But a jury needs to make the decision, not a mob.

[Confederate]

If I were on the jury I could not convict him of murder.

Same. Manslaughter, maybe but definitely not murder.

[Darguth]

I won't lose any sleep if a jury sets him free. But a jury needs to make the decision, not a mob.

A jury is a mob.

[AGRP]

How many stories are there of cops who murder people for simply running away? Dont they justify their actions because of the "safety" of the public? Did the father protect the public at large by preventing him from driving or running away and killing more people?

[asurfaholic]

Did you even read the quote of mine you just posted? The rational for punishing this behavior (albeit a lesser punishment) is not to stop people like the children's father. It is in place to deter people who are in control of their faculties from committing violent acts, knowing that they would likely escape punishment by claiming temporary insanity. Which seems to work pretty well, considering that 99.9% of people who have a loved one killed by a drunk driver don't go out and kill the person.


I won't lose any sleep if a jury sets him free. But a jury needs to make the decision, not a mob.

I have been known to misread comments before, so i read it angain and again. Im still reading it the same pretty much. Maybe i just dont get your point.. You are saying that maybe a sane person might choose to act insane for the sake of comitting a crime and getting away with it.... Therefore the dad should face some sort of punishment to prevent that?

Are you saying that dad was insane when he shot the driver?

Are you saying a court can punish someone who would otherwise be found to be acting within reason just to prevent other people from thinking they can act within reason?

[kcchiefs6465]

I have been known to misread comments before, so i read it angain and again. Im still reading it the same pretty much. Maybe i just dont get your point.. You are saying that maybe a sane person might choose to act insane for the sake of comitting a crime and getting away with it.... Therefore the dad should face some sort of punishment to prevent that?

Are you saying that dad was insane when he shot the driver?

Are you saying a court can punish someone who would otherwise be found to be acting within reason just to prevent other people from thinking they can act within reason?
Are you saying that Jose Banda's parents have the right to kill David Barajas? Or do you agree that he [David Barajas] needs to go to court so evidence can be presented and a proper punishment given? (or hopefully the proper punishment is given)

[asurfaholic]

How many stories are there of cops who murder people for simply running away? Dont they justify their actions because of the "safety" of the public? Did the father protect the public at large by preventing him from driving or running away and killing more people?

Playing devils advocate, it is only a justified shooting if you can either A) establish that you are in fear of your life, and/or B) it is established that the person is a immediate threat to others if you dont stop him in his tracks.

Does the drunk guy pose a immediate threat to life as he stumbles drunk over the bodies he just laid to waste? Is he a threat to others at this point?

I am personally an eye for an eye type person, justice was served... On a hot plate. While the courts may not like it, dad lost two. The drunks fam only lost one, they still owe him one, but they could probably call it even.

[asurfaholic]

Are you saying that Jose Banda's parents have the right to kill David Barajas? Or do you agree that he needs to go to court so evidence can be presented and a proper punishment given? (or hopefully the proper punishment is given)

Courts should decide on a case by case basis, and not based on the fact that others might do the same thing.

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2L85M287gk&feature=youtube_gdata

[kcchiefs6465]

Courts should decide on a case by case basis, and not based on the fact that others might do the same thing.
So if I understand you correctly, and forgive me if I don't, you are saying that David Barajas was fine to kill Jose Banda because Jose Banda just killed his two sons? Following that line of thinking, I'd assume you would not see a problem with Jose Banda's parents killing David Barajas as he killed their son. Is this not what you are saying? (And if it is not what you are saying, why does one deserve to have a day in court, while the other one is shot down in the street on sole judgement of one man?)

[kcchiefs6465]

[video]
??

[TywinLannister]

I have been known to misread comments before, so i read it angain and again. Im still reading it the same pretty much. Maybe i just dont get your point.. You are saying that maybe a sane person might choose to act insane for the sake of comitting a crime and getting away with it.... Therefore the dad should face some sort of punishment to prevent that?

Are you saying that dad was insane when he shot the driver?

Are you saying a court can punish someone who would otherwise be found to be acting within reason just to prevent other people from thinking they can act within reason?
I'm saying we don't automatically allow people to go around shooting other people in the way he did. I don't know the man's mental state. There are different options depending on the facts and circumstances. For each option, certain elements have to be met.

based on my jurisdiction-
a person is guilty of first degree murder who 1) kills 2) a living human being 3) (i) with malice and (ii) with a specific intent to kill formed after premeditation and deliberation

second degree murder is the same, except without element 3) (ii) (intent and premeditation)

voluntary manslaughter, which I think may apply to this situation, consists of 1) killing 2) a living human being 3) without malice.
there are two types of killing without malice recognized , one of which is "a killing committed in the sudden heat of passion caused by adequate provocation that would arouse an ordinary person beyond his or her power or control" It's a Class D felony with a minimum sentence ranging from 38 to 117 months in prison, depending on prior convictions.


*I'm not a lawyer, you are not a client, this isn't legal advice, blah blah blah

[James Madison]

It would seem the drunk driver received his comeuppance, swiftly and efficiently. Hope the jury absolves the father of any wrong-doing.

[asurfaholic]

So if I understand you correctly, and forgive me if I don't, you are saying that David Barajas was fine to kill Jose Banda because Jose Banda just killed his two sons? Following that line of thinking, I'd assume you would not see a problem with Jose Banda's parents killing David Barajas as he killed their son. Is this not what you are saying? (And if it is not what you are saying, why does one deserve to have a day in court, while the other one is shot down in the street on sole judgement of one man?)

No. Im not really meaning to imply that it is ok that anyone gets shot. Honestly its a bad situation all around.

I look at more from "when the dust settles" perspective. In the end both families experienced a tragic loss. Think of it this way- if you went to a bar, minding your own business, and danke came out of nowhere and sucker punched your nuts. It would seem reasonable that you would respond by stomping his face. When the dust settles, the violater has been served a plate of justice, and the violated would have no claim to having the violater jailed.

Much like the all american sport of football, when opposing teams both commit penalties on a play, they cancel each other out.

Now if joses parents came and shot david later after the dust had settled, it would be a new crime, premeditated murder. Not a crime of passion either by most states' definition.


And to add to this, jail and courts are for the criminals who didnt get properly "responded" on when they committed their crimes.

[pcosmar]

*I'm not a lawyer, you are not a client, this isn't legal advice, blah blah blah

Good thing too.
See Extenuating Circumstances. crime passionnel (Crime of passion), in particular.. Sometime referred to as temporary insanity.


A crime of passion refers to a criminal act in which the perpetrator commits a crime, especially murder or assault, against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime.[2] A typical crime of passion might involve an aggressive pub-goer who assaults another guest following an argument or a husband who discovers his wife has made him a cuckold and proceeds to brutally batter or even kill his wife and the man with whom she was involved.
In the United States civil courts, a crime of passion is referred to as "temporary insanity". This defense was first used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key, but was most used during the 1940s and 1950s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

[Pericles]

It would seem the drunk driver received his comeuppance, swiftly and efficiently. Hope the jury absolves the father of any wrong-doing.

The best letter ever written:

"Gentlemen,

You have undertaken to cheat me. I will not take this matter to court, for the law is too slow. Instead, I'll ruin you.

Sincerely,

Cornielus Vanderbilt"

[bolil]

Hopefully the father gets a jury trial and a jury verdict of one day community service. I would have shot the murderer too.

[devil21]

Eye for an eye. This wasn't an accident this was a drunk driver who killed 2 boys the guy gets what he gives.

I can't help but notice that there's somewhat of a different attitude toward this incident than the Dorner incident, even though they are essentially the same. The drunk driver also deserved his due process in court, not a summary execution by the roadside. The shooter definitely should be charged and convicted if the facts show that he killed the driver.

I don't believe in picking and choosing who gets due process and who doesn't.

[TywinLannister]

Good thing too.
See Extenuating Circumstances. crime passionnel (Crime of passion), in particular.. Sometime referred to as temporary insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

A crime of passion is NOT the same thing as temporary insanity. I will refer you to the element I just listed "a killing committed in the sudden heat of passion caused by adequate provocation that would arouse an ordinary person beyond his or her power or control" , which is an element of voluntary manslaughter

To prove insanity, a defendant must prove that at the time of the act, "he was laboring under such a defect of reason caused by disease or deficiency of the mind that he or she was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act, that he or she was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to the act"

[alucard13mmfmj]

drunk driver killing 2 kids.. the driver would get maybe 15-25 years? and will probably get out in 8 with good behavior and crowded prison.

sad that both parties "lose".

[pacodever]

I can't help but notice that there's somewhat of a different attitude toward this incident than the Dorner incident, even though they are essentially the same. The drunk driver also deserved his due process in court, not a summary execution by the roadside. The shooter definitely should be charged and convicted if the facts show that he killed the driver.

I don't believe in picking and choosing who gets due process and who doesn't.

Not the same at all. Dorner, former military and leo, was either murdered by the state or took his own life after exhausting all his options in what he knew would be a likely result of his actions against the state.

The next case involves two private citizens. The drunk driver in this case took from the father and children what can not be given back. Whether from passion, temporary insanity, or even the result of a calm, reasoned decision in which he knew the possible consequences , I have no problem with what he did.

No one else was behind the wheel of that car. No evidence presented will change the facts the father witnessed himself. In a way, he was the most qualified person to make a determination of the appropriate action. I don't trust 12 strangers forced to be there, getting paid $20 a day, who did not witness event, who are completely removed from the situation and its consequences, who are almost certainly never really your peers (I can't imagine someone like me being allowed to sit on a jury after being vetted by both the prosecution and defense), are subjected to emotional arguments made by paid manipulators to unanimously come to the right decision.

I wouldn't trust 12 strangers to pick out a sandwich for me (after hearing expert testimony, forensic evidence of past sandwiches, witnesses, and taking the stand myself to state my preferences), let alone dispense justice.

Maybe the father didn't either or maybe he would rather face the jury than afford the murderer of his children the same right. Either way, I support him.

[MisfitToy]

Only thing the father did wrong was try to hide the incident and I don't think anyone can judge this from an objective standpoint.

[TywinLannister]

I can't help but notice that there's somewhat of a different attitude toward this incident than the Dorner incident, even though they are essentially the same.

They are not even remotely the same.

[TywinLannister]

Only thing the father did wrong was try to hide the incident and I don't think anyone can judge this from an objective standpoint.

Well, trying to hide the incident shows that he is not insane, because he was aware of the consequences of his act. Unless you believe he was insane just in the moment, but actually proving insanity is pretty rare.

[dillo]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

Are you implying that someone that watches their 2 sons die in front of them is able to distinguish between right and wrong?

[kcchiefs6465]

Good thing too.
See Extenuating Circumstances. crime passionnel (Crime of passion), in particular.. Sometime referred to as temporary insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion
Indeed. And I'm sure a jury will be considering that. I imagine that's going to be his defense.

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand why he killed him,should he go to jail for it,absolutely.If he went to court and they gave the driver something stupid like a few years in jail then I would support him if he killed everyone in the room.But you have to let it go trough the system first,if the system fails then do what you want to do in my opinion.

Now THAT would be Murder 1. premeditated revenge killing. There wouldn't even be a controversy over it.

[QuickZ06]

I can't help but notice that there's somewhat of a different attitude toward this incident than the Dorner incident, even though they are essentially the same. The drunk driver also deserved his due process in court, not a summary execution by the roadside. The shooter definitely should be charged and convicted if the facts show that he killed the driver.

I don't believe in picking and choosing who gets due process and who doesn't.

I agree with the bolded part, especially the last part.

[devil21]

They are not even remotely the same.

Actually they are. Dorner allegedly killed some people and the cops decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Dad here felt he could be judge, jury and executioner too because the drunk driver allegedly killed some people. In the Dorner case, there was outcry here against his execution, yet there is support here for dad's act as executioner. Does not compute. Im not saying the circumstances are the same but the big picture sure is. Everyone deserves their due process, both Dorner and the drunk driver.

[satchelmcqueen]

enough of the shit about crying for the drunk guy. he killed the mans kids. i dont blame him for shooting him. sorry but the guy shouldnt have drove. he got what he deserved imo. if a stupid ass choice by some dumbass killed my kids, im pretty sure id flip out and get instant revenge.

[devil21]

enough of the shit about crying for the drunk guy. he killed the mans kids. i dont blame him for shooting him. sorry but the guy shouldnt have drove. he got what he deserved imo. if a stupid ass choice by some dumbass killed my kids, im pretty sure id flip out and get instant revenge.

And that's pretty much what I read being posted by cops on other forums regarding Dorner.

[TywinLannister]

Are you implying that someone that watches their 2 sons die in front of them is able to distinguish between right and wrong?

I don't think you understand how difficult it is to prove insanity.

Yes, he can distinguish between right and wrong. The whole reason he is shooting the guy is because of right and wrong. If he could not distinguish between right and wrong, he would not have the capacity to understand that his children getting run over by a drunk driver was wrong. The fact that he tried to hide what he did pretty much tells you that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and knew he was not obeying the law.

[TywinLannister]

Indeed. And I'm sure a jury will be considering that. I imagine that's going to be his defense.

They may very well not consider it if the judge does not allow it.


The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts. Most states regulate the defense with statutes, but a few states allow the courts to craft the rules for its proper use. Generally, the defense is available to a criminal defendant if the judge instructs the jury that it may consider whether the defendant was insane when the crime was committed. The judge may issue this instruction if the defendant has produced sufficient evidence at trial to justify the theory. Sufficient evidence invariably includes Expert Testimony by psychologists and psychiatrists


The public is given a distorted view of who uses the defense and how it is employed. In fact about one percent of criminal defendants invoke the defense. More important, criminals rarely "beat the rap" by Pleading insanity. When an insanity defense is employed, it means the defendant admits committing the criminal behavior and is now seeking a not guilty verdict on the basis of his state of mind. If the jury does not agree, the defendant will be convicted, and generally will serve a longer sentence than will someone convicted of the same crime who has not pleaded insanity.

Juries find for only about 20 percent of the defendants who plead insanity. Even this figure does not reflect the reality that many insanity pleas are the result of plea bargains, which indicates that prosecutors agree that such pleas are sometimes appropriate.

Finally, the fact that most highly publicized cases involve murder disguises the true demographics: 60 to 70 percent of insanity pleas are for crimes other than murder. They range from assault to shoplifting.

All these myths have led to the belief that criminals can avoid punishment by claiming insanity. The truth is that the insanity defense is a risky one at best.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense

[RockEnds]

I guess I don't understand why, if the family was close enough to home for the dad to walk home and get a gun then walk back and shoot the driver before anyone else got there, why didn't the family just walk home? My boys were 11 and 12 once, and at that age, I wouldn't have wanted them pushing a truck in the dark on a road. Surely he could have called a friend to pull or push the truck home. Or wait until morning or something, anything, but put two preteens behind that truck in the dark.

The person he killed wasn't much more than a kid. Is it okay for his father to shoot the father who shot him? Where's the line? I've seen nothing that would indicate the driver intentionally killed anyone. It appears, however, that it's a little more likely the driver of the car was intentionally killed.

What was the road like? Was there a hill? A curve? How dark is dark? How much time did the driver have to see the truck and react? Was the truck on the side of the road? Was there a side of the road? Did the driver attempt to stop?

I'm anything but ready to say this dad was justified. It's a horrible, awful, tragedy, no doubt. I'm sure he loved his sons. I'm sure he suffered when they died. But I'm not sure he was justified in shooting the driver of the car.

[devil21]

^^^^^^
Sounds like a lot of bad decisions all around and those choices are usually called "mitigating circumstances" in a court of law and factor into sentencing and even in things like jury nullification.

Now, the surviving kids have dead siblings and a father likely to spend a long time in prison. Nobody wins.

[TywinLannister]

I guess I don't understand why, if the family was close enough to home for the dad to walk home and get a gun then walk back and shoot the driver before anyone else got there, why didn't the family just walk home? My boys were 11 and 12 once, and at that age, I wouldn't have wanted them pushing a truck in the dark on a road. Surely he could have called a friend to pull or push the truck home. Or wait until morning or something, anything, but put two preteens behind that truck in the dark.

The person he killed wasn't much more than a kid. Is it okay for his father to shoot the father who shot him? Where's the line? I've seen nothing that would indicate the driver intentionally killed anyone. It appears, however, that it's a little more likely the driver of the car was intentionally killed.

What was the road like? Was there a hill? A curve? How dark is dark? How much time did the driver have to see the truck and react? Was the truck on the side of the road? Was there a side of the road? Did the driver attempt to stop?

I'm anything but ready to say this dad was justified. It's a horrible, awful, tragedy, no doubt. I'm sure he loved his sons. I'm sure he suffered when they died. But I'm not sure he was justified in shooting the driver of the car.

You make a couple of good points. Where do we draw the line? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that. (technically, the last guy would still have one remaining eye) XD

As far as road conditions, what if, due to the curve, any sober driver would have also killed the kids? Would it still be ok to kill the driver? If I come around a curve and kill a child, and I could not have reasonably anticipated this occurring, do I deserve to have my head blown off?

[TywinLannister]

Nobody wins.

I think that is something we can all agree on.

[alucard13mmfmj]

everyone loses. that is all that needs to be said.

[TywinLannister]

Another thing I had not even thought about, but dad may not have even known the guy was drunk. He certainly didn't do a breath analysis before he came back and shot him. So if the dad didn't know the driver was drunk, would that change anyone's opinion of his actions?

[Pericles]

I guess I don't understand why, if the family was close enough to home for the dad to walk home and get a gun then walk back and shoot the driver before anyone else got there, why didn't the family just walk home? My boys were 11 and 12 once, and at that age, I wouldn't have wanted them pushing a truck in the dark on a road. Surely he could have called a friend to pull or push the truck home. Or wait until morning or something, anything, but put two preteens behind that truck in the dark.

The person he killed wasn't much more than a kid. Is it okay for his father to shoot the father who shot him? Where's the line? I've seen nothing that would indicate the driver intentionally killed anyone. It appears, however, that it's a little more likely the driver of the car was intentionally killed.

What was the road like? Was there a hill? A curve? How dark is dark? How much time did the driver have to see the truck and react? Was the truck on the side of the road? Was there a side of the road? Did the driver attempt to stop?

I'm anything but ready to say this dad was justified. It's a horrible, awful, tragedy, no doubt. I'm sure he loved his sons. I'm sure he suffered when they died. But I'm not sure he was justified in shooting the driver of the car.

The line is not that hard to establish. Don't kill people who have not taken or are attempting to take the lives of others to which you are not a witness.

[AGRP]

Maybe justice was served and a deterrent was set? Dont drive drunk or you could kill two innocent boys and cause their protective father to blow your brains out while the general public applauds his actions? RIP Dirt Bag? Isnt that a deterrent?

[Pericles]

Another thing I had not even thought about, but dad may not have even known the guy was drunk. He certainly didn't do a breath analysis before he came back and shot him. So if the dad didn't know the driver was drunk, would that change anyone's opinion of his actions?

Kill my children in front of me, and you better not stop there.

[fr33]

Those that initiate force deserve to suffer force. That is libertarian justice.

[fr33]

Kill my children in front of me, and you better not stop there.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Pericles again.

[RockEnds]

It wasn't like the guy beat him to death with his bare hands. Back in the 80s, I had a motor paper route. I delivered papers over about 100 miles of gravel roads every night. I've had car trouble on dark gravel roads more times than you can shake a stick at. That dad wasn't thinking when he put those two boys behind that truck. The second they heard an oncoming vehicle, mom (assuming she was behind the wheel) should have hit the brakes and those boys should have gotten off the road. No matter how mad ya'll wanna be, that accident was preventable, and it was the father of the boys who was in the best position to have prevented it.

[Icymudpuppy]

I'd have beat him to death. That way it would look like he died from the crash.

[Pericles]

I'd have beat him to death. That way it would look like he died from the crash.

+rep Those internal injuries are a bitch.

[RockEnds]

I'd have beat him to death. That way it would look like he died from the crash.

I could cut the guy a bigger break if he'd done it that way. But walking home to get a gun. One of his boys was still alive. Didn't he maybe want to stay and try to help save him? I just can't see my way to thinking that dad amounted to a whole lot.

[AGRP]

I could cut the guy a bigger break if he'd done it that way. But walking home to get a gun. One of his boys was still alive. Didn't he maybe want to stay and try to help save him? I just can't see my way to thinking that dad amounted to a whole lot.

Would you be thinking logically after realizing a drunk driver just turned your boys into road kill?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd have beat him to death. That way it would look like he died from the crash.

Maybe in 1965, but blunt trauma force from a crash would be much more impactful than your fist or leg which can be and will be easily identifiable by any competent forensic doctor, or hell, just about any doctor.

[RockEnds]

Would you be thinking logically after realizing a drunk driver just turned your boys into road kill?

The guy will get his day in court. He'll have his chance to tell his story. Maybe he has some reason for walking home while his son lay dying but still alive. I don't know. Sounds cowardly to me, but whatever. But I do know that the driver of the car won't get his day in court. The news articles I've read haven't said anything about a blood alcohol test. Maybe the guy had a head injury. That can mimic alcohol consumption. I don't know. That's just the point. Who does know? For some reason, everyone is ready to justify the driver's death.

Remember the case of the dad beating to death the child molester he caught in the act? That was more than understandable. There was no running home to get a gun. There was no doubt about the intent of the molester. There was just dad beating a dirtball to death on the spot. I get that. This, not so much. This is just plain and simply not as clear cut.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018478574_apustexasfathersjustice.html

[Icymudpuppy]

Maybe in 1965, but blunt trauma force from a crash would be much more impactful than your fist or leg which can be and will be easily identifiable by any competent forensic doctor, or hell, just about any doctor.

You've been watching too much CSI and Dexter. It really isn't as easy as that. Also, the traffic cops wouldn't even bother to flag it for investigation in the first place.

[AGRP]

The guy will get his day in court. He'll have his chance to tell his story. Maybe he has some reason for walking home while his son lay dying but still alive. I don't know. Sounds cowardly to me, but whatever. But I do know that the driver of the car won't get his day in court. The news articles I've read haven't said anything about a blood alcohol test. Maybe the guy had a head injury. That can mimic alcohol consumption. I don't know. That's just the point. Who does know? For some reason, everyone is ready to justify the driver's death.

Remember the case of the dad beating to death the child molester he caught in the act? That was more than understandable. There was no running home to get a gun. There was no doubt about the intent of the molester. There was just dad beating a dirtball to death on the spot. I get that. This, not so much. This is just plain and simply not as clear cut.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018478574_apustexasfathersjustice.html

Both of them were wrong. You cant say one is wrong and not the other. Both of them must have been angry as humanly possible. One man used his fists. The other used his legs and a bullet. You cant judge unless youve been through the same thing. The difference is that one cop understood it as justice served and turned a blind eye.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Really? How many DUI drivers have run over kids? How many of those accidents were the fault of the children running into the road? How many of those could have been prevented should they not have been drinking? Your assessment that because this man was 20 years old the man was well within right to execute him as a means of preventing similar cases is incredible. I would assume you were referring to running over more kids correct? Not just any 'drunk driver' (over .08 in most states) should be executed to prevent further 'crimes'?

Hey- if someone wants to play russian roulette, whats wrong with pulling the trigger for them?

[RockEnds]

Both of them were wrong. You cant say one is wrong and not the other. Both of them must have been angry as humanly possible. One man used his fists. The other used his legs and a bullet. You cant judge unless youve been through the same thing. Its up to the court.

I'm not trying to judge. Maybe the guy was justified. He will have his day in court. What I'm sure of is that there is no reason under the sun for anyone to celebrate the shooting of a 20-year-old kid who may be innocent.

[MelissaWV]

Would you be thinking logically after realizing a drunk driver just turned your boys into road kill?

I picked this one to quote, but it could have been any number of remarks.

The emphasis continues to be on this person being a drunk driver. Take the "drunk" out of it. If you're going to argue the guy was not thinking rationally, then you're also going to have to argue that he couldn't have accurately known the other driver was drunk. He also could not accurately have known any reason behind the crash, just that it had happened. After the fact, some of you are using "drunk driver" as a shield to hide behind. Somehow I do not think the actions would have been different if it was just some old guy who couldn't see clearly, or someone whose car malfunctioned, or someone who fell asleep at the wheel, or someone who'd had a medical emergency that caused them to swerve at the wrong time. Those hypothetical folks would still be dead.

So take all of the excuses out of it. He killed the person that killed his kids. If you can accept that, regardless of all the circumstances above, then at least you are consistent.

[AGRP]

I'm not trying to judge. Maybe the guy was justified. He will have his day in court. What I'm sure of is that there is no reason under the sun for anyone to celebrate the shooting of a 20-year-old kid who may be innocent.

Im not celebrating, but its understandable that some would considering what the father went through. Its doubtful that there was another drunk driver that killed them and drove away.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I can't help but notice that there's somewhat of a different attitude toward this incident than the Dorner incident, even though they are essentially the same. The drunk driver also deserved his due process in court, not a summary execution by the roadside. The shooter definitely should be charged and convicted if the facts show that he killed the driver.

I don't believe in picking and choosing who gets due process and who doesn't.

I'm alright with the outcome of both (even before they verified Dorner offed himself).

Dorner, by having a firefight with police then barricading himself in the cabin, had essentially shown he wasn't willing to subject himself to a jury trial.

This guy, he was nice enough to make it quick.

[RockEnds]

Im not celebrating, but its understandable that some would considering what the father went through. Its doubtful that there was another drunk driver that killed them and drove away.

Please find an article that states he had a blood alcohol content. I cannot find one. I can find sensational headlines of a drunk driver, but nothing that shows there has been any hard evidence. Thanks.

eta: He's under 21, so any trace of alcohol could mean he was over the legal limit. Was he over 0.08, or whatever is legally intoxicated nowadays? I can't find a single article that says anything about blood alcohol.

[kcchiefs6465]

You've been watching too much CSI and Dexter. It really isn't as easy as that. Also, the traffic cops wouldn't even bother to flag it for investigation in the first place.
Lmao. Apparently boot print bruises on the body and the father's broken bloodied hands would just escape notice. Yes it is that easy.

[kcchiefs6465]

Hey- if someone wants to play russian roulette, whats wrong with pulling the trigger for them?
Hearing someone compare driving somewhat intoxicated, or even completely shitfaced for that matter, to Russian roulette is a first for me. (Aside from maybe MADD propagandist drivel) Let's assume you have a five shot revolver, as many are, that is a 20% chance of death. Are you willing to assert that driving drunk has similar odds? Furthermore, 'what's wrong with pulling the trigger for them?' Um, a lot? One involves them killing themselves, as this man did not, nor was he even playing anything close to as dangerous as Russian roulette, and the other involves your actions leading directly to their death. I'll ask you the same question as I asked someone else, are you supportive of Jose Banda's parents killing Barajas without so much as a trial? If not, why does one get a trial and the other one does not?

[AGRP]

Please find an article that states he had a blood alcohol content. I cannot find one. I can find sensational headlines of a drunk driver, but nothing that shows there has been any hard evidence. Thanks.

Doesn't matter. Was the rapist drunk or sober? The man you excused for killing the rapist raged and acted the same as the guy with the gun. The only difference is that one cop understood and turned a blind eye.

[AuH20]

Please find an article that states he had a blood alcohol content. I cannot find one. I can find sensational headlines of a drunk driver, but nothing that shows there has been any hard evidence. Thanks.

eta: He's under 21, so any trace of alcohol could mean he was over the legal limit. Was he over 0.08, or whatever is legally intoxicated nowadays? I can't find a single article that says anything about blood alcohol.

0.175 based on a few articles I read. The 20 year old punk was trashed. Now we have one less moron to worry about.

[MelissaWV]

0.175 based on a few articles I read. The 20 year old punk was trashed.

Was that based on the sobriety test the dad administered after the accident?

Otherwise I don't see how it's actually relevant.

[kcchiefs6465]

Please find an article that states he had a blood alcohol content. I cannot find one. I can find sensational headlines of a drunk driver, but nothing that shows there has been any hard evidence. Thanks.

eta: He's under 21, so any trace of alcohol could mean he was over the legal limit. Was he over 0.08, or whatever is legally intoxicated nowadays? I can't find a single article that says anything about blood alcohol.
Very good point. Under 21 and above 18 in my previous state was anything over .02 was a DUI. I belive someone mentioned his BAC was .175, though I have not read that anywhere. Even if it was that 'high' people are affected differently and this accident very well might not have been avoided if he was sober. Your question on road conditions etc. is another good point.

[RockEnds]

0.175 based on a few articles I read. The 20 year old punk was trashed. Now we have one less moron to worry about.

Two less if this article is correct:

http://newsone.com/2205036/david-barajas/


After their truck ran out of gas about 30 miles from their Houston home, David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11, were helping their father push it and were about 50-yards away when Banda crashed into them from behind.

Thirty miles? That can't be right. I am so sure they passed a gas station in 30 miles. And who in their right mind would make two kids push a truck 30 miles? How long do you think that would take? I'm just a little beyond speechless at the thought of that.

[kcchiefs6465]

0.175 based on a few articles I read. The 20 year old punk was trashed. Now we have one less moron to worry about.
.175 is not that high. While maybe it's twice as much as the legal limit, it is still not that high. He very well may have been coherent and alcohol may not have played a role in the crash. We will never know as any evidence won't be presented at trial. (tire marks, etc.)

[AuH20]

Was that based on the sobriety test the dad administered after the accident?

Otherwise I don't see how it's actually relevant.

Based off the toxicology report on the body. This wasn't a gray area where Bandas BAC level was .081 or something negligible. It was more than double!!!!!

[XNavyNuke]

###

[kcchiefs6465]

Based off the toxicology report on the body. This wasn't a gray area where Bandas BAC level was .081 or something negligible. It was more than double!!!!!
Depending on his size and weight, what he ate, etc. .175 really isn't that high. While it is double I have not seen any conclusive evidence that it played a role in the accident. It is a tragedy that two kids died, but there are still a lot of questions. Namely, what's the road like, how dark was it, was there any evidence of attempting to brake, did the car being pushed have blinkers on? Those are just off the top of my head.

[RockEnds]

###

Thanks. But if the report that they were pushing it because they ran out of gas 30 miles down the road, my opinion of the dad hasn't changed. I know some people prone to poor planning, but that's really kinda special. Thirty miles, and they still don't have gas? Sooooo many questions....

[AuH20]

Depending on his size and weight, what he ate, etc. .175 really isn't that high. While it is double I have not seen any conclusive evidence that it played a role in the accident. It is a tragedy that two kids died, but there are still a lot of questions. Namely, what's the road like, how dark was it, was there any evidence of attempting to brake, did the car being pushed have blinkers on? Those are just off the top of my head.

Agreed, but I have a hard time believing that the father maintained his rage to such a degree that he went to his nearby home, retrieved his pistol and then shot the driver. He had to witness the driver show demonstrable signs of alcohol abuse, which probably sent him over the edge, because such a sight would probably elicit the same response from me as well. Mental error is one thing but to recklessly drive with no cares in the world is another.

[Tod]

But most people would not, because they don't want to go to prison. If there was no punishment, everyone would kill drunk drivers and claim insanity.

I expect I would have done the same too. For this sort of situation, I don't believe the prospect of punishment serves as any deterrent at all.

[MelissaWV]

Agreed, but I have a hard time believing that the father maintained his rage to such a degree that he went to his nearby home, retrieved his pistol and then shot the driver. He had to witness the driver show demonstrable signs of alcohol abuse, which probably sent him over the edge, because such a sight would probably elicit the same response from me as well. Mental error is one thing but to recklessly drive with no cares in the world is another.

All absolute conjecture at this point, and honestly after an accident... someone is "acting drunk"? Most folks do.

The fact that AFTER THE FACT the driver was found to be drunk means nothing in the context of this accident. There are too many other factors, and too many ways I could see myself getting into an accident without drinking at all, and winding up executed.

[Professor8000]

The question here is if the shooting was justified. Lets look at the facts. The driver violated the rights of 2 people that night. Those people were children who's life was unexpectedly taken from them. The father of the two boys was their guardian. He was one of the people who's responsibility it was to defend the rights and property of those two boys. The driver's rights were forfeit the moment his vehicle struck those children. That much is certain. The father of the children responded violently to a perceived threat, one that had already caused much damage. Did his response violate the rights of anyone? No. Was his shooting justified? Yes. So, one must conclude that the father of those two boys did not commit a crime. He could have possibly broken the law, but in every way it matters, he did nothing wrong other than fail to protect his children from harm.

[fr33]

Thirty miles? That can't be right. I am so sure they passed a gas station in 30 miles. And who in their right mind would make two kids push a truck 30 miles? How long do you think that would take? I'm just a little beyond speechless at the thought of that.Just us working poor would. I'm not surprised by the scenario. Gas doesn't always fix a broke down car. Not all of us are AAA members.

[RockEnds]

The question here is if the shooting was justified. Lets look at the facts. The driver violated the rights of 2 people that night. Those people were children who's life was unexpectedly taken from them. The father of the two boys was their guardian. He was one of the people who's responsibility it was to defend the rights and property of those two boys. The driver's rights were forfeit the moment his vehicle struck those children. That much is certain. The father of the children responded violently to a perceived threat, one that had already caused much damage. Did his response violate the rights of anyone? No. Was his shooting justified? Yes. So, one must conclude that the father of those two boys did not commit a crime. He could have possibly broken the law, but in every way it matters, he did nothing wrong other than fail to protect his children from harm.

That works except for the fact that he put them in harm's way when he had them pushing the truck on a dark, rural road. That's the stumbling block for me right there. Then, it turns out he somehow didn't foresee that he was taking his family 30 miles out of range of his fuel. And I would really, really like to know how the truck got from where it ran out of gas to their home. Did they push it? Why were his wife and all of his children still in this disabled vehicle after 30 miles. I'm guessing he didn't have road side assistance. Did he have any cash on him when he took them 30 miles out of fuel range? Did he have no friends to come get them? And why was he not hurt? Was he actually back there pushing with them? Did he take the inside and give the kids the outside? If he loved his kids enough to kill the driver of the car, how did they get behind that vehicle at night? Where was his concern for them the instant before the accident?

I absolutely cannot justify his actions without knowing the answers to those questions and more.

[RockEnds]

Just us working poor would. I'm not surprised by the scenario. Gas doesn't always fix a broke down car. Not all of us are AAA members.

I'm not made of money. Far, far from it. Thirty miles isn't just a little oversight, though. Maybe it was a misprint. Maybe 3 miles? I could see 3 miles. Thirty miles? No way. Running out of gas 30 miles from home isn't accidental. It's irresponsible. Maybe he didn't know how to prime it. Maybe it couldn't be primed. Either way, how in the heck did that truck move 30 miles? Have you ever walked 30 miles? I have. That's a long frikkin' distance. I can't even begin to imagine pushing that far. How was his family still there in the truck after 30 miles? How many days did this take?

That either had to be a misprint, or this guy was a mess. A real mess.

[fr33]

I'm not made of money. Far, far from it. Thirty miles isn't just a little oversight, though. Maybe it was a misprint. Maybe 3 miles? I could see 3 miles. Thirty miles? No way. Running out of gas 30 miles from home isn't accidental. It's irresponsible. Maybe he didn't know how to prime it. Maybe it couldn't be primed. Either way, how in the heck did that truck move 30 miles? Have you ever walked 30 miles? I have. That's a long frikkin' distance. I can't even begin to imagine pushing that far. How was his family still there in the truck after 30 miles? How many days did this take?

That either had to be a misprint, or this guy was a mess. A real mess.

So did he walk home 30 miles to get the gun? When you have nothing, you start pushing and rely on the kindness of other humans.

[RockEnds]

So did he walk home 30 miles to get the gun? When you have nothing, you start pushing and rely on the kindness of other humans.

I left home at 14. I'm familiar with relying on the kindness of others. Some humans are kind. Some not so much. Which is why you shouldn't pack your family 30 miles away without gas in your truck. I really hope that's wrong. Honestly. I do. Mostly you rely on your instincts, and with any luck at all, you live long enough to develop some. Those would be the same instincts that stops one from putting two kids behind a disabled vehicle on a dark, rural road.

[bolil]

I have had a change of heart, he should not have taken justice into his own hands. I understand that the father was likely insanely angry, but the driver deserved a trial just like everyone else would.

[fr33]

I left home at 14. I'm familiar with relying on the kindness of others. Some humans are kind. Some not so much. Which is why you shouldn't pack your family 30 miles away without gas in your truck. I really hope that's wrong. Honestly. I do. Mostly you rely on your instincts, and with any luck at all, you live long enough to develop some. Those would be the same instincts that stops one from putting two kids behind a disabled vehicle on a dark, rural road.

It's easy to say "don't take your family 30 miles away" but when the need arises; it happens. Crappy car or not. I remember when we didn't have mobile phones and we did walk many miles when we broke down..

[TywinLannister]

Was that based on the sobriety test the dad administered after the accident?

Otherwise I don't see how it's actually relevant.

You aren't familiar with the gunshot sobriety test?

It's kind of like the drowning test for witches. See, you shoot at the guy, and if you hit him and kill him, you know he was not drunk. If you miss, you know he is wasted, and you shoot him again.

[jkob]

Losing his 2 sons in front of him is unfathomable but killing a 20 year old kid is unacceptable and he should face consequences.

[Origanalist]

If I were on the jury I could not convict him of murder.

Nor I

[Captain Shays]

As I understood it for a long time, Texas has a law that if you catch your wife in bed with another man and shoot her and him you won't be charged with murder. It seems they understand how a husband might react naturally. I hope they understand how this father responded naturally. There are many people who would do exactly the same thing......including me.......possibly. I would at least think about doing it. Don't know for sure if I would follow through.

[pcosmar]

As I understood it for a long time, Texas has a law that if you catch your wife in bed with another man and shoot her and him you won't be charged with murder. It seems they understand how a husband might react naturally. I hope they understand how this father responded naturally. There are many people who would do exactly the same thing......including me.......possibly. I would at least think about doing it. Don't know for sure if I would follow through.

I had posted that earlier in the thread.. and the actual name for it.
It is not a Justifiable Homicide. But it is a "Crime of Passion". Commonly,,Temporary insanity. (where an otherwise sane and law abiding person has a mind snap)

That is all something for his lawyers and a jury to decide.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Hearing someone compare driving somewhat intoxicated, or even completely shitfaced for that matter, to Russian roulette is a first for me. (Aside from maybe MADD propagandist drivel) Let's assume you have a five shot revolver, as many are, that is a 20% chance of death. Are you willing to assert that driving drunk has similar odds? Furthermore, 'what's wrong with pulling the trigger for them?' Um, a lot? One involves them killing themselves, as this man did not, nor was he even playing anything close to as dangerous as Russian roulette, and the other involves your actions leading directly to their death. I'll ask you the same question as I asked someone else, are you supportive of Jose Banda's parents killing Barajas without so much as a trial? If not, why does one get a trial and the other one does not?

Well, it could be a 100 round drum with a single questionable round, if you'd rather. Operating a moving couple-ton machine under the influence --whether its from booze, marijuana, prescription pills, etc-- instead of securing a sober ride through whatever means says, to me at least, that the person in question doesn't value their own lives or the lives of the people they share the road with. That they are willing to kill themselves, my girlfriend, my family, to save a few bucks from getting a taxi-ride. Maybe it isn't a direct parallel to russian roulette, but its on the same level of stupid IMO, and is in ways worse in that it involves putting people lives at jeopardy who aren't willing participants.

I don't see any problem with Brajas having to defend himself in court. I think he was justified in his action, so if I were the DA I wouldn't have charged him, but I see no problem with it. And obviously, if I think his actions were justified then I think they should come without repercussions. Hence I think further retaliations by the Banda family would be murder, just as I would if Barajas decided the 1:2 family k/d ratio wasn't in his liking.

[kcchiefs6465]

Well, it could be a 100 round drum with a single questionable round, if you'd rather. Operating a moving couple-ton machine under the influence --whether its from booze, marijuana, prescription pills, etc-- instead of securing a sober ride through whatever means says, to me at least, that the person in question doesn't value their own lives or the lives of the people they share the road with. That they are willing to kill themselves, my girlfriend, my family, to save a few bucks from getting a taxi-ride. Maybe it isn't a direct parallel to russian roulette, but its on the same level of stupid IMO, and is in ways worse in that it involves putting people lives at jeopardy who aren't willing participants.

I would not have an idea of how to verify the amount of people who drive over the legal limit without being caught and without incident. I know many people who smoked cannabis daily and drove without incident. I know many people who drove while drinking a beer and never had a problem. (This was before they felt it necessary to violate the rights of the majority to ensure the safety of yourself from yourself- i.e being pulled over for a seat belt violation) I agree, driving while drunk (the legal limit is low, imho) is dangerous in certain instances. To even put it on par with a 1% rate of death is outrageous. I wouldn't even liken it to one live round in an ammo box of 1000. I smoked cannabis for a while, basically everyday for years, and I have never been in an accident. I've driven 'drunk' more times than I can recall and I have never had a major incident. Actually, some of the best driving I've ever seen was from people who would be considered drunk. (tend to be defensive drivers) It all depends on the driver.

Would you be opposed to Barajas killing Banda if he was say, sleepy? Or if he was texting, or trying to get a bottle of pop open? Of all the people I have rode with the one that scared me the most was my brother in law. He could not drive for shit and almost killed us once or twice. He never drank in his life. He was just a ridiculously bad driver. I've never had a problem with drivers that are under the influence. Particularly with cannabis but even with alcohol. Accidents will happen regardless. (Hence the name) I really couldn't tell you how many kids' lives were ruined because of these out of control 'precrime' laws.

[dillo]

From a libertarian perspective, a family suffered the loss of two sons (I don't give a rat's donkey if Rothbard thinks the father had property rights in his children or not). How does the person who deprived the two kids of their lives make restitution to those kids? To the family? He can't, so he pays with his life.

It makes people pretty damn careful about what they do, or ends the destruction they leave behind them as soon as possible.

even if its an accident? What if the driver was drunk but it was the kids fault for getting hit by the car? Drunk Driving is a buzzword now a days

[P3ter_Griffin]

I would not have an idea of how to verify the amount of people who drive over the legal limit without being caught and without incident. I know many people who smoked cannabis daily and drove without incident. I know many people who drove while drinking a beer and never had a problem. (This was before they felt it necessary to violate the rights of the majority to ensure the safety of yourself from yourself- i.e being pulled over for a seat belt violation) I agree, driving while drunk (the legal limit is low, imho) is dangerous in certain instances. To even put it on par with a 1% rate of death is outrageous. I wouldn't even liken it to one live round in an ammo box of 1000. I smoked cannabis for a while, basically everyday for years, and I have never been in an accident. I've driven 'drunk' more times than I can recall and I have never had a major incident. Actually, some of the best driving I've ever seen was from people who would be considered drunk. (tend to be defensive drivers) It all depends on the driver.

Would you be opposed to Barajas killing Banda if he was say, sleepy? Or if he was texting, or trying to get a bottle of pop open? Of all the people I have rode with the one that scared me the most was my brother in law. He could not drive for shit and almost killed us once or twice. He never drank in his life. He was just a ridiculously bad driver. I've never had a problem with drivers that are under the influence. Particularly with cannabis but even with alcohol. Accidents will happen regardless. (Hence the name) I really couldn't tell you how many kids' lives were ruined because of these out of control 'precrime' laws.

Of the things you mentioned, no, I would think Barajas was still within his right (or what I think should be his right) to respond the way he did to his kids being killed. If this had been a complete accident, snowy roads or what have you, I'd still support his actions, but I'd expect him and anyone else to know that there would be repercussions (murder charges) for responding that way.

[kcchiefs6465]

Of the things you mentioned, no, I would think Barajas was still within his right (or what I think should be his right) to respond the way he did to his kids being killed. If this had been a complete accident, snowy roads or what have you, I'd still support his actions, but I'd expect him and anyone else to know that there would be repercussions (murder charges) for responding that way.
I believe you may have misspoke? (your statement afterwards about the murder charges leads me to think that) I could understand how a man could lose his sanity temporarily at witnessing his son die. I would not support executing anyone. Accidents will happen. They could make all the laws more strict, hire more police, and there would still be tragedies such as this. My only point is that I do not know the circumstances of even if it was Banda's fault- or whether being alcohol free would have even prevented the accident. I do not know what I would do. But I cannot say I support Barajas for what he did, or even say I'd support myself depending on the circumstances. A tragedy all the way around.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Yes, understand or sympathize would be a much better word. Thanks.

[misean]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen joggers and people walking on the side of busy roads when its dark out that are asking to be hit. What kind of parent has their kids pushing a car on the side of the road at night where getting hit is even a possibility. I hope the parent gets executed if he is found guilty. There is no justification for killing someone especially if you are partially at fault.

[kcchiefs6465]

I can't tell you how many times I've seen joggers and people walking on the side of busy roads when its dark out that are asking to be hit. What kind of parent has their kids pushing a car on the side of the road at night where getting hit is even a possibility. I hope the parent gets executed if he is found guilty. There is no justification for killing someone especially if you are partially at fault.
I have seen some extremes in this thread. Let's all just kill each other.

[misean]

I have seen some extremes in this thread. Let's all just kill each other.

Or whatever the punishment is for murder. Life in prison seems fair too.

[bolil]

I have seen some extremes in this thread. Let's all just kill each other.

Okay, should we all meet in the desert somewhere? No ambushes. No guns, lets do it the old way. Swords, rocks, fists, and sticks.

[kcchiefs6465]

Okay, should we all meet in the desert somewhere? No ambushes. No guns, lets do it the old way. Swords, rocks, fists, and sticks.
Agreeing to a duel, with set and determined rules, is one thing. [whether that be with rocks, sticks, stones, or a Model 2] And if two people happen to think their problems can only be solved with one dying- or the possibility of one dying, I have no problems with that. Agree to it. That is not what happened. It is not determined who or what 'caused' the crash or even if the crash was avoidable. Accidents happen. I am not sure of what the punishment of the father should be same as I was not sure what the punishment of the driver should be. A tragedy all the way around.

[Danke]

No. Im not really meaning to imply that it is ok that anyone gets shot. Honestly its a bad situation all around.

I look at more from "when the dust settles" perspective. In the end both families experienced a tragic loss. Think of it this way- if you went to a bar, minding your own business, and danke came out of nowhere and sucker punched your nuts. It would seem reasonable that you would respond by stomping his face. When the dust settles, the violater has been served a plate of justice, and the violated would have no claim to having the violater jailed.

Much like the all american sport of football, when opposing teams both commit penalties on a play, they cancel each other out.

Now if joses parents came and shot david later after the dust had settled, it would be a new crime, premeditated murder. Not a crime of passion either by most states' definition.


And to add to this, jail and courts are for the criminals who didnt get properly "responded" on when they committed their crimes.

I'd have him set to GITMO.

[green73]

Not Guilty:

https://gma.yahoo.com/jury-finds-texas-man-not-guilty-shooting-death-201801615--abc-news-topstories.html

[nobody's_hero]

Holy cow, the mother of all follow-ups.

[jbauer]

Not Guilty:

https://gma.yahoo.com/jury-finds-texas-man-not-guilty-shooting-death-201801615--abc-news-topstories.html

Heck of a catch rep+ for finding this and bringing it back. After reading into this one it kinda sounds like the father might not have actually killed anyways but the drunk got what he deserved regardless of how it happened.

[kylejack]

I think the father probably killed him, but the evidence was extremely weak. I wouldn't have convicted him.

[Christian Liberty]

If I were on the jury I could not convict him of murder.

This.

I'm not sure I want to live in a world like that. Not to mention all the people who would be killed by mistake based on a rush to judgment.

That would be why vigilante justice should be handled via jury nullification when appropriate rather than being "legal."