Texas Dad Accused of Murdering Drunk Driver Who Killed Kids

[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 $#@!faced 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 $#@! 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 $#@! 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-tex...opstories.html

[nobody's_hero]

Holy cow, the mother of all follow-ups.

[jbauer]

Not Guilty:

https://gma.yahoo.com/jury-finds-tex...opstories.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."