Was justice served???

signalmankenneth said:
Father Kills Man Who Killed His Kids
For those who believe in an eye for an eye.....

http://www.parentsociety.com/news-2...aign=David-Barajas-Faces-Trial-for-Serving-Hi

Only in Texas?!!

We can't have people taking the law into their own hands!
Click to expand...

It seems that the man who shot the drunk driver is going to stand trial. It looks as though the system works.

As for whether the man was right or wrong for killing the drunk driver, there will be those who argue both sides of this. The man saw his 12 year old son killed before his eyes and his 11 year old son was obviously very seriously injured. I think most fathers would understand the rage in which he murdered the drunk driver. If the man was obviously drunk and had just killed one of my children and seriously injured another, I cannot guarantee I would not have done the same thing. And I think the gun is a nonissue here, as many fathers would have no problem killing the drunk driver with their bare hands.

Was justice served? From an emotionless legal standpoint? No, it was not. From the gut of a father? Yeah, it was.
 
The driver would've been found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, and maybe criminally neg. homicide.

Prob. served about 5 years.

Unfortunately, you can't shoot drunks on a whim. He'll get away w/temp insanity. Prob be sent to a nuthouse for a few years.
 
Althea said:
The driver would've been found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, and maybe criminally neg. homicide.

Prob. served about 5 years.

Unfortunately, you can't shoot drunks on a whim. He'll get away w/temp insanity. Prob be sent to a nuthouse for a few years.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking he would probably get off with the temporary insanity plea. But if this was not why that defense was created I don't know what would be.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Father Kills Man Who Killed His Kids
For those who believe in an eye for an eye.....

http://www.parentsociety.com/news-2...aign=David-Barajas-Faces-Trial-for-Serving-Hi

Only in Texas?!!

We can't have people taking the law into their own hands!
Click to expand...

I found another article that gives the prior criminal history of the drunk driver.

From: http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2013/02/20/news/doc512507964bb39658688447.txt

"Banda’s [the drunk driver] criminal history dated back to 2007. His record included evading arrest, possession of a controlled substance and many DWI charges, once while a child was in his car."

Perhaps if the authorities had done something about this man the two boys would still be alive.
 
WinterBorn said:
It seems that the man who shot the drunk driver is going to stand trial. It looks as though the system works.

As for whether the man was right or wrong for killing the drunk driver, there will be those who argue both sides of this. The man saw his 12 year old son killed before his eyes and his 11 year old son was obviously very seriously injured. I think most fathers would understand the rage in which he murdered the drunk driver. If the man was obviously drunk and had just killed one of my children and seriously injured another, I cannot guarantee I would not have done the same thing. And I think the gun is a nonissue here, as many fathers would have no problem killing the drunk driver with their bare hands.

Was justice served? From an emotionless legal standpoint? No, it was not. From the gut of a father? Yeah, it was.
Click to expand...

this would be a good case for jury nullification

if i were on the jury, i would vote not guilty

if i were there when the drunk killed and damaged my kids, i would have hauled him out of his car and ripped his or her throat open with my teeth
 
The problem is that the father had no way to conclusively judge the drunk drivers intoxication or negligence and was prejudiced by his relation to the victims.
 
not knowing more facts of this issue, like how close was the father when he shot the driver and was the driver still in the car, but if it were me I'd have kept my mouth shut and claimed self defense. the driver was obviously going to try to hit us again.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not knowing more facts of this issue, like how close was the father when he shot the driver and was the driver still in the car, but if it were me I'd have kept my mouth shut and claimed self defense. the driver was obviously going to try to hit us again.
Click to expand...

a good defense, but then they might try to get him for carrying a concealed weapon

what ever happened to justice and equity, now it all about winning at any cost
 
Don Quixote said:
a good defense, but then they might try to get him for carrying a concealed weapon

what ever happened to justice and equity, now it all about winning at any cost
Click to expand...
People taking the law into their own hands is a good recipe for chaos. Read up on gang shootings, they're almost always in response to some perceived wrong, and they spiral into yet more deaths and revenge.
 
Don Quixote said:
a good defense, but then they might try to get him for carrying a concealed weapon
Click to expand...
we have a motorist protection law in TX, it allows one to have a concealed weapon in their car or on them if they are enroute to their car or from their car to destination. this could easily be applied to having to push your disabled vehicle, so i doubt that a concealed weapon charge would stick.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and I posit that the government gets just as many right/wrong as do people.
Click to expand...
Rarely however does the execution of a condemned criminal result in more murders against the victim's family. The point of a justice system is to take the personal revenge out of retribution. And when the government gets it wrong, there's actually some appeals, rather than just getting a bullet in the head.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
The problem is that the father had no way to conclusively judge the drunk drivers intoxication or negligence and was prejudiced by his relation to the victims.
Click to expand...

Considering his blood alcohol was more than twice the legal limit, it was probably pretty obvious that he was drunk, not to mention the fact that he had just plowed into a vehicle being pushing by a man and 2 boys down a residential street.
 
Don Quixote said:
do you have a child or children?
Click to expand...
Ah good, the "parent's know" argument" It's pretentious bull**** when people talk about a child needing it's natural mother, it's pretentious bull**** when parents talk about how involved they are in their child's life. Being a parent is not hard, otherwise most parents could do it. I reject the concept that just because a child is involved people feel the need to check the box marked "Logic not applicable". I don't need to "raise and rear a child" to figure out that death is bad.
 
WinterBorn said:
Considering his blood alcohol was more than twice the legal limit, it was probably pretty obvious that he was drunk, not to mention the fact that he had just plowed into a vehicle being pushing by a man and 2 boys down a residential street.
Click to expand...

if the drunk was lucky, he would have killed all three thereby removing any chance of instant retribution
 
Disillusioned said:
Ah good, the "parent's know" argument" It's pretentious bull**** when people talk about a child needing it's natural mother, it's pretentious bull**** when parents talk about how involved they are in their child's life. Being a parent is not hard, otherwise most parents could do it. I reject the concept that just because a child is involved people feel the need to check the box marked "Logic not applicable". I don't need to "raise and rear a child" to figure out that death is bad.
Click to expand...

No one is saying "parents know". I haven't even seen anyone advocate that what this man did was right.

But if you were a parent you would understand how he could do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top