A father shoots 'drunk' driver moments after his children were killed...

davet82

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

Father ‘shot dead drunk driver moments after he crashed into truck killing his two young sons'

Father David Barajas, 31, was charged with murder in the shooting death of Jose Banda, 20

Banda was drunk when he struck Barajas' car this December, as he and his sons pushed it home on a rural road

Barajas' sons David Jr. 12, and Caleb, 11 were killed, and Banda was found dead of a gunshot wound at the scene

Barajas has turned himself in and is being held on $450,000 bond

First of all what a terrible story.

I'd hate to end up on the jury of a case like this as there is a big part of me that would want to let the guy walk for what he did if i'm really honest (thats if it turns out he was intoxicated btw)

I'd really hate to be judge or juror anyways when it comes to cases like these, it would be so hard to get it right

miss no stars

temporary insanity?

sounds like it. I don't see how anyone would be sane and rational just after someone kills your kids.

Holsten

Really sad as that is first degree murder, a capital crime.

Good chance he'll get the death penalty if found guilty.

Tombo2001

Hand on heart, cant say i wouldnt do the same.

Lenin Skynard

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Hand on heart, cant say i wouldnt do the same.

I can't say I definitely wouldn't not decide to not do it.

KTRIC

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Hand on heart, cant say i wouldnt do the same.

Me too, actually nearly cried reading that.

Poor man.

wolfpawnat

Holsten wrote: »

Really sad as that is first degree murder, a capital crime.

Good chance he'll get the death penalty if found guilty.

It's not first degree murder.

first degree murder n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or with certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder are established by statute in each state and by the United States Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

It was not premeditated, he never went out that evening with the intention of killing the other man.

I had a weird nightmare this morning where a driver came off the road and struck my son as I was dropping him to pre-school, when I was awake later in the morning and doing just that (the dropping my son to pre-school bit obviously) I thought to myself what I would do, and kill him if possible there and then was the first thought in my head.

I would not blame that poor man, that idiot killed his sons. He was not of full mind and no jury or judge could claim he was!

The Big Red Button

What an absolutely tragic situation.

I can't imagine that the parent will be convicted, given the circumstances.

Having said that, if I were a parent, I would like to think that I'd have more cop on than to have my two young kids out pushing a broken-down truck on what is described as a 'dark rural road' ...

boomshakalaka

Don't really know what else to see than I agree with the OP. I would not want to be the one accountable for sentencing this man, when I can completely understand where he is coming from. Best chance, as said, is claiming temporary insanity. That said, there's no way he's getting of easy for murder.

Holsten

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It's not first degree murder.

It was not premeditated, he never went out that evening with the intention of killing the other man.

I read this "Brazoria County sheriff's investigator Dominick Sanders said Monday that witnesses told authorities they saw Barajas, right after the crash, walk to his home and then return a few minutes later and approach Banda's vehicle."

So I assumed he went home, got a gun and came back and shot him.

I can see how he might get a lesser sentence due to the circumstances but a man was shot dead in cold blood, people don't get let off for that.

steddyeddy

I wouldn't want to be the jury involved in this case but again if anyone touched a family member I care about I would shoot them.

The Big Red Button

The article says that the mother (who was also in the truck) has also been accused of the shooting, but it's the father who's given himself into police. Doesn't seem like any forensic evidence has been processed yet.

wolfpawnat

Holsten wrote: »

I read this "Brazoria County sheriff's investigator Dominick Sanders said Monday that witnesses told authorities they saw Barajas, right after the crash, walk to his home and then return a few minutes later and approach Banda's vehicle."

So I assumed he went home, got a gun and came back and shot him.

I can see how he might get a lesser sentence due to the circumstances but a man was shot dead in cold blood, people don't get let off for that.

But by then the accident had happened and he was NOT of sound mind. A few minutes is not very long, you can argue second degree and could possibly win, but not first.

Tin Foil Hat

Aren't guns great? They really helped this tragic situation become a hell of a lot less sh!t.

Turtyturd

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Aren't guns great? They really helped this tragic situation become a hell of a lot less sh!t.

Drink driving is the obvious issue. But let's have a go at gun control.

Tin Foil Hat

Turtyturd wrote: »

Drink driving is the obvious issue. But let's have a go at gun control.

No it isn't. Without guns this story is just another road death on a different continent.

lockon...

The trial should determerine if the driver was in fact drunk. If he was, then the accused should then be let off with the courts apologies and given a medal.

Turtyturd

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

No it isn't. Without guns this story is just another road death on a different continent.

Without a drunk driver no story exists.

Kristopherus

lockon... wrote: »

The trial should determerine if the driver was in fact drunk. If he was, then the accused should then be let off with the courts apologies and given a medal.

Absolutely.

Jimdwyer

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

No it isn't. Without guns this story is just another road death on a different continent.

I'm sure if he had a knife or another weapon he still would have killed him. The gun doesn't have a mind of its own.

wolfpawnat

lockon... wrote: »

The trial should determerine if the driver was in fact drunk. If he was, then the accused should then be let off with the courts apologies and given a medal.

It definitely adds something extra to the trial. If the young man got out of the car and was showing signs of drunkenness, speech slurring and the like a grieving parent would go into an uncontrollable rage IMO. Think about it, your two beautiful children dead in front of you, and then you realise they would not be dead if this man had not been drinking. Hand on my heart, I cannot guarantee there would be enough of him left to ID. I can honestly say I would be in no right mind to be responsible for my actions.

doulikeit

Red mist no one knows how they react to these things personally i think fcuk the drink driver probably would have done it himself any way after the torment when he realised what he had done feel so bad for that poor family

GalwayGuy2

Originally Posted by Turtyturd
Drink driving is the obvious issue. But let's have a go at gun control.

Ahh but blaming the gun is a nice, simple explanation;)

Anyway, yes it's sad, and I can see why the father did that, but let walk? Hell no, he just killed a man.

Temporary insanity, sure, if it's true and proven that it could be classed as temporary insanity.

Cee-Jay-Cee

It's not murder as it wasn't pre-meditated.

I don't blame the man and I don't think a jury will either.

miss no stars

Holsten wrote: »

I read this "Brazoria County sheriff's investigator Dominick Sanders said Monday that witnesses told authorities they saw Barajas, right after the crash, walk to his home and then return a few minutes later and approach Banda's vehicle."

So I assumed he went home, got a gun and came back and shot him.

I can see how he might get a lesser sentence due to the circumstances but a man was shot dead in cold blood, people don't get let off for that.

It wasn't cold blood. In the heat of the moment he spent a couple of minutes getting a weapon and retaliating. If he'd gone home, burried his children, grieved and then tracked the guy down weeks later? That'd be cold blood. Minutes later he was probably still unable to think.

pat_cork

I can't believe that people are saying the father was right to shoot the drink driver. Haven't any of you ever heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

HondaSami

Drunk driver is wrong without question but the other guy driving around with a gun in his car is not exactly in the right either, taking the law into your own hands is not right.

wolfpawnat

pat_cork wrote: »

I can't believe that people are saying the father was right to shoot the drink driver. Haven't any of you ever heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

Actually what we are saying is we have no idea what way we would react, we just know if it were OUR children, we probably, like that man, would not be held accountable for our actions. There is a saying "two wrongs don't make a right", but there is another saying, "No parent should ever have to bury their child" that idiot's actions caused them to bury two!

irlirishkev

HondaSami wrote: »

Drunk driver is wrong without question but the other guy driving around with a gun in his car is not exactly in the right either, taking the law into your own hands is not right.

It's Texas..

Einhard

Turtyturd wrote: »

Drink driving is the obvious issue. But let's have a go at gun control.

Yeah but nobody supports drink driving...

wolfpawnat

Einhard wrote: »

Yeah but nobody supports drink driving...

Hopefully the prosecutor will not have heard of the Healy-Raes!

Turtyturd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Hopefully the prosecutor will not have heard of the Healy-Raes!

New permits to allow for the shooting of drink drivers.

wolfpawnat

Turtyturd wrote: »

New permits to allow for the shooting of drink drivers.

Perhaps that would be courtesy of a particular other South Kerry TD

mike65

So instead of two people dead, its three and a life/death sentence which leaves the wife......free to start a new life.

wolfpawnat

mike65 wrote: »

So instead of two people dead, its three and a life/death sentence which leaves the wife......free to start a new life.

I doubt she will be too able for the world after two of her children being taken from her and a murder trial where she will have to relive it over and over most days of said trial.

MadsL

Holsten wrote: »

Really sad as that is first degree murder, a capital crime.

Good chance he'll get the death penalty if found guilty.

I'd take a substantial bet with you that he won't. There are parts of Texas where "Judge, he needed killin', so I did" is a valid criminal defense.

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Aren't guns great? They really helped this tragic situation become a hell of a lot less sh!t.

Depends on your viewpoint; swift summary justice, or a lifetime in prison. I'd say the father did him a favour. Child killers don't do so well in Texas prisons.

mike65

Twisted logic to defend gun crimes.

BattleCorp

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

No it isn't. Without guns this story is just another road death on a different continent.

It's quite likely that if he didn't have a gun at home, he would have used something else. Maybe a kitchen knife, baseball bat, hurley, his fists. That's if he did it in the first place, innocent until proven guilty n all that.

MadsL

mike65 wrote: »

Twisted logic to defend gun crimes.

Would you be making the same argument if he beat him to death with tyre iron at the side of the road?

Whooo...gun involved = kneejerk anti-gun statement

HondaSami

irlirishkev wrote: »

It's Texas..

It's still wrong imo

wolfpawnat

MadsL wrote: »

Depends on your viewpoint; swift summary justice, or a lifetime in prison. I'd say the father did him a favour. Child killers don't do so well in Texas prisons.

Not to mention, his name suggests he's Hispanic, that would make his life even worse.

And Mike65, it would have been something else if it were not the gun, my guess, a tire iron.

A_Sober_Paddy

Think the man should get a medal...his kids were murdered...if you decide to drink alcohol...anything you do is your own fault

Denis322

If I was in that situation, I honestly couldn't see myself doing any different.

Though one thing that may have been discussed in the article and I just didn't pick up on, is the fact that it was actually a dark night. There's a reason people wear reflective clothing out on the roads at night, and I feel if the drive had been sober and hit two children out with their father on a dark country road it would be a completely different case.

Even still, I don't think he should end up facing the death sentence or a particularly harsh prison sentence for what he did.

Procrastastudy

Firstly I can't comment on the US law but it is murder - pre-meditation doesn't require a plan just some thought before hand. Going back to get the gun is enough. On gun control - the point is valid. This guy had every reason to snap but people snap for lesser reasons. Having guns around - not helpful.

This will get taken up pro bono by a dream legal team - I'd be surprised if the guy even sees the inside of a jail cell let alone a death sentence. (And rightly so franky)

MadsL

HondaSami wrote: »

Drunk driver is wrong without question but the other guy driving around with a gun in his car is not exactly in the right either, taking the law into your own hands is not right.

It's still wrong imo

Not in Texas, it is perfectly legal, and sensible.

Here's an example why. My wife was just caught out at night on a remote rural road after her rental car got a puncture. She couldn't find the spare (was actually under the car) and the rental company told her they couldn't get out to her, nor could they get a tow truck. She had to try to limp the car to the next town. I'm bawling out the rental car company as we speak.

So a woman, alone, at night, in heels, on a remote rural road with a broken down car. See why people carry guns in their cars in this part of the world?

starlings

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Think the man should get a medal...his kids were murdered...if you decide to drink alcohol...anything you do is your own fault

the kids' deaths were manslaughter; the drunk driver's was murder. It's a question of intent - the drunk driver is culpable, but unless he deliberately hit the children, he didn't murder them. The father was so crazed with shock and grief, understandably, that he wanted to kill the driver. Sadly, no one stopped him. I say this with more sympathy for the father than the driver, btw.

BattleCorp

Denis322 wrote: »

Though one thing that may have been discussed in the article and I just didn't pick up on, is the fact that it was actually a dark night. There's a reason people wear reflective clothing out on the roads at night, and I feel if the drive had been sober and hit two children out with their father on a dark country road it would be a completely different case.

Even still, I don't think he should end up facing the death sentence or a particularly harsh prison sentence for what he did.

Yep, maybe it didn't help the way the kids were dressed but whatever way you look at it, drink driving is drink driving. There's no excuse.

As MadsL said, a lot of people over in Texas would agree that " "Judge, he needed killin', so I did" would be a reasonable excuse for killing the drunk driver.

Drink driving isn't tolerated at all over in the States.

HondaSami

MadsL wrote: »

Not in Texas, it is perfectly legal, and sensible.

Here's an example why. My wife was just caught out at night on a remote rural road after her rental car got a puncture. She couldn't find the spare (was actually under the car) and the rental company told her they couldn't get out to her, nor could they get a tow truck. She had to try to limp the car to the next town. I'm bawling out the rental car company as we speak.

So a woman, alone, at night, in heels, on a remote rural road with a broken down car. See why people carry guns in their cars in this part of the world?

I'm a woman, drive at night all the time in a rural area and no I don't need a gun in my car.
I know it's legal in Texas but thankfully it will never be legal in Ireland for the very reason this thread was started.

Procrastastudy

HondaSami wrote: »

I'm a woman, drive at night all the time in a rural area and no I don't need a gun in my car.
I know it's legal in Texas but thankfully it will never be legal in Ireland for the very reason this thread was started.

You would in the states to be fair. Too many other nutters running around with them.

But you point is well taken and in my opinion completely correct.

opinion guy

To turn this on its head.

Supposing the guy wasn't drunk ? He rear-ended a car on a dark rural road at night with two kids pushing it - presumably blocking the lights if they were working. It may not have been his fault. You gotta wonder about the safety of having your kids push your truck on a dark road at night don't ya think ?

lockon...

starlings wrote: »

the kids' deaths were manslaughter; the drunk driver's was murder. It's a question of intent - the drunk driver is culpable, but unless he deliberately hit the children, he didn't murder them. The father was so crazed with shock and grief, understandably, that he wanted to kill the driver. Sadly, no one stopped him. I say this with more sympathy for the father than the driver, btw.

All death's in this case were caused by manslaughter.