Trial of Texas father raises legal, moral issues

[EVT1]

Aug 28, 2014 11:54:06 GMT -5 Shooby said:

You can maintain whatever you want. Nobody thinks they will be in those shoes until they are. But, if anyone is going to go "off" over anything, killing someone's kids is probably #1.

No- I am quite sure I would not leave my dying children in the street while I hike to the house to retrieve a gun.

If I was that angry and 'went off' I think a tire iron would be more likely.

Strange though- lots of children die in auto accidents and I do not recall a rash of drivers killed over it- sounds like that is the odd case- maybe people aren't as out of control as you think.

[Shooby]

Aug 28, 2014 12:44:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2014 11:54:06 GMT -5 Shooby said:

You can maintain whatever you want. Nobody thinks they will be in those shoes until they are. But, if anyone is going to go "off" over anything, killing someone's kids is probably #1.

i think it is equally hard to predict that you WOULD kill.  in other words, you can say what you will about EVT NOT killing in that situation, but you can also make no claims that you or anyone else WOULD, without, as you say "being in those shoes".

I didn't pronouce that I would or I wouldn't. I do not know. Neither does EVT.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2014 16:30:25 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Aug 28, 2014 12:44:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it is equally hard to predict that you WOULD kill.  in other words, you can say what you will about EVT NOT killing in that situation, but you can also make no claims that you or anyone else WOULD, without, as you say "being in those shoes".

I didn't pronouce that I would or I wouldn't. I do not know. Neither does EVT.

fine.  but my point was that a person who might THINK they would kill in that situation wouldn't.  and one that THINKS they might not would.  as you say, it is impossible to tell until you reach that point.  some people just snap in that moment.

[Shooby]

I didn't say that I think I would kill. I don't think I would because I would not even be able to function after some thing like that but I don't know. Evt keeps saying he Knows. No he doesn't.

[TheHaitian]

Aug 28, 2014 16:43:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2014 16:30:25 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I didn't pronouce that I would or I wouldn't. I do not know. Neither does EVT.

fine.  but my point was that a person who might THINK they would kill in that situation wouldn't.  and one that THINKS they might not would.  as you say, it is impossible to tell until you reach that point.  some people just snap in that moment.

I believe what shooby was trying to say is that this is one instance where she would be more forgiving or sympathetic to the defense team.

It doesn't excuse the act, but you get 1 parent on that jury pool and it would have been a mistrial and I am not surprised he was acquitted.

The same way I am not surprised that the father that beat to death the guy that he found molesting is child was not found guilty either.

You don't excuse the act, but you can surely understand it.

[EVT1]

Would you be as sympathetic had he shot a 90yo lady that maybe didn't see the truck until it was too late or even easier- if the driver was sober?

I think this is just another situation where breaking the law is ok for some people as long as the right people get killed- in this case because the person was drunk- which may or may not have been the entire cause of this.  I think dad has some blame.

[Shooby]

Totally different scenario. I judge each case on its own facts.

[Shooby]

Um drunk driving and killing someone is breaking the law. Doh!

[EVT1]

Aug 28, 2014 19:02:32 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Totally different scenario. I judge each case on its own facts.

That's what I thought- drunk driver-no problem kill him, driver had trunk full of meth- fine kill him, driver was a thug- see where I am going with this

Do you not think the dad is partially to blame in this?   Why were his kids pushing a truck on a dark road?  Were the flashers even on?  Maybe the kids were standing in front of them?  Why was dad not in back pushing and let one of the kids steer?  Why not just move the truck over and walk to the house and get some gas- it was close enough for a gun grab wasn't it? 

So you at least agree in a bad traffic accident where children are killed, killing the other driver is not automatically a reasonable act right?

[Shooby]

He was 100 ft from his house with 2 strappingboys. No I don't see a problem with that.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Aug 28, 2014 19:59:47 GMT -5 Shooby said:

He was 100 ft from his house with 2 strappingboys. No I don't see a problem with that.

Then why didn't he just leave his broken-down car parked at the side of the road and walk the 100 ft with his boys back to his house? That's such a short distance, it's barely even next-door. Was it really worth the risk of the boys getting out and pushing the car in the dark? The lights of the car probably weren't even turned on. The car could have been pushed or towed home the next day when it was light out.

If the car had been left parked at the side of the road, and then been hit, it would have just been the car that suffered damages.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 28, 2014 19:59:47 GMT -5 Shooby said:

He was 100 ft from his house with 2 strappingboys. No I don't see a problem with that.

11 and 12-year-old boys are not strapping, or tall, robust, sturdy or powerfully built.

[EVT1]

Aug 28, 2014 19:59:47 GMT -5 Shooby said:

He was 100 ft from his house with 2 strappingboys. No I don't see a problem with that.

Really? You would let your kids push a vehicle down a dark road? I see a huge problem with that- not being safe at the top of the list.

[truthbound]

Aug 28, 2014 12:44:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2014 11:54:06 GMT -5 Shooby said:

You can maintain whatever you want. Nobody thinks they will be in those shoes until they are. But, if anyone is going to go "off" over anything, killing someone's kids is probably #1.

i think it is equally hard to predict that you WOULD kill.  in other words, you can say what you will about EVT NOT killing in that situation, but you can also make no claims that you or anyone else WOULD, without, as you say "being in those shoes".

No it is not hard to predict.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 29, 2014 4:40:27 GMT -5 truthbound said:

Aug 28, 2014 12:44:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it is equally hard to predict that you WOULD kill.  in other words, you can say what you will about EVT NOT killing in that situation, but you can also make no claims that you or anyone else WOULD, without, as you say "being in those shoes".

No it is not hard to predict.

i only claimed that you can't take someone to task for saying they wouldn't kill without taking others to task for saying they would. 

[whoisjohngalt]

Aug 28, 2014 18:52:26 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Would you be as sympathetic had he shot a 90yo lady that maybe didn't see the truck until it was too late or even easier- if the driver was sober?

I think this is just another situation where breaking the law is ok for some people as long as the right people get killed- in this case because the person was drunk- which may or may not have been the entire cause of this.  I think dad has some blame.

I would not be sympathetic to anyone who doesn't take driving seriously. 

We had a long discussion on here awhile back where someone compared a drunk driver to a mother being distracted by her kids and causing an accident.

To me there is very little difference.  Unless the driver himself is having unpredictable medical emergency - there is  no reason to be a selfish jerk and not take operating a car seriously.

[EVT1]

And on the other side of the coin somone with an inoperable vehicle pushing it the roadway is not taking operating a vehicle seriously either. That's being a selfish jerk as well.

[Shooby]

Oh, well, of course it is the boys fault for pushing the car. THey should have realized some stoned drunk was going to plow straight into the back of them and mangle and kill them. How silly of me!

[zibazinski]

Doesn't raise a legal or moral issue with me. If he did it, I'm glad and glad he got away with it. Some people need killing. George Carlin was right.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2014 13:12:00 GMT -5 kent said:

Crime of passion/temporary insanity?  Whatever it takes if I'm on the jury.

How about you?  Oh, and for the anti-gun crowd, imagine bare fists, a rock or stick was used so you don't have to ramble on about guns - the issue is payback.

ANGLETON, Texas (AP) — David Barajas denies killing a drunk driver in a fit of rage after his two sons were fatally struck in 2012 on a rural road in Southeast Texas.


His defense attorney says Barajas is a good man, a grieving father and not a murderer. At the same time, his defense hasn't publicly suggested who else might be responsible for Jose Banda's shooting death.

Barajas' trial is set to begin Monday in a case with many complexities: No weapon was recovered, no witnesses identified him as the shooter and many in Barajas' community have strongly sympathized with him, with some saying they might have taken the law into their own hands if faced with a similar situation......

news.msn.com/crime-justice/trial-of-texas-father-raises-legal-moral-issues

I find there are two separate issues- first is lack of evidence, and second is sympathy for the accused, and it is not clear at all whether sympathy motivated the jury.  It's a capital offense- which means that "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes into play.  They have no murder weapon, and no witnesses.  They have motive, they have opportunity, but no means.  I don't think not-guilty-- whatever their motivation may have been-- is necessary to acquit this man.

Personally, I would be grateful that the prosecutor lacked the evidence and thus made it easy to let the man go for killing the murderer of his family; but given all the evidence, and barring any instruction from the judge re: 'temporary insanity' plea-- I'd have to convict if I had everything I needed to do so.  Law's the law.  Especially when it comes to murder. I'd hope the judge would consider the mitigating circumstances, but it's not for the jury to decide this murder is OK, and this one isn't.  That's a very dangerous, very slippery slope.

[EVT1]

Aug 30, 2014 7:07:44 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Oh, well, of course it is the boys fault for pushing the car. THey should have realized some stoned drunk was going to plow straight into the back of them and mangle and kill them. How silly of me!

It's the dad's fault they were in the roadway in the first place.

And just to throw this out there- was the drunk driver even at fault for the accident?  Last I checked a DWI is not automatic proof of it.  For all anyone knows this was on a blind curve or hill and there were yards of skid marks before impact.  But I get it- children dead, drunk driver shot, case closed.

A very slippery slope as PBP points out- deciding guilt or innocence based not on the actions of the person that commits a murder, but on who was murdered. 

[zibazinski]

Then if there's no proof and no evidence, why are they trying to prosecute him? Because he's the most likely to have done it? What a waste.

[Shooby]

EVT said: """It's the dad's fault they were in the roadway in the first place.
And just to throw this out there- was the drunk driver even at fault for the accident? Last I checked a DWI is not automatic proof of it. For all anyone knows this was on a blind curve or hill and there were yards of skid marks before impact. But I get it- children dead, drunk driver shot, case closed.
A very slippery slope as PBP points out- deciding guilt or innocence based not on the actions of the person that commits a murder, but on who was murdered."""

The drunk driver isn't at fault? Wasn't he supposed to be IN CONTROL of his car and not smash into another one? Wow. Unbelievable.

[Tennesseer]

Too many 'what ifs'.

The driver was allegedly intoxicated.  What if he had not been drinking that evening.  What if he had not gone out at all that evening.

The father had his two young sons pushing the vehicle on a darkened street, trying to get it another 100 yards to their home.  What if the father had simply had the boys push the car off the road to the side and gas it up in the morning.  What if the father had gassed up the vehicle before coming home that night.  What if the family had not gone out that evening.
 
There were a number of things that could have/should have/should not have been done earlier that evening which would have changed the tragic outcome.  Unfortunately, all those 'what if' things were not done earlier that evening and what was not done came together in one deadly moment.

[Shooby]

What's alleged? Didnt' they do any toxicology to confirm it?

[Tennesseer]

Aug 30, 2014 15:53:02 GMT -5 Shooby said:

What's alleged? Didnt' they do any toxicology to confirm it?

Not sure and I did not want to go back looking for it nor searching the Internet.

ETA: It was confirmed he was driving under the influence. So the rest of my 'what if's about him still apply, as in what if he had not been drinking that night and what if he had not gone out that evening.

[EVT1]

Aug 30, 2014 14:58:04 GMT -5 Shooby said:

EVT said: """It's the dad's fault they were in the roadway in the first place.
And just to throw this out there- was the drunk driver even at fault for the accident? Last I checked a DWI is not automatic proof of it. For all anyone knows this was on a blind curve or hill and there were yards of skid marks before impact. But I get it- children dead, drunk driver shot, case closed.
A very slippery slope as PBP points out- deciding guilt or innocence based not on the actions of the person that commits a murder, but on who was murdered."""

The drunk driver isn't at fault? Wasn't he supposed to be IN CONTROL of his car and not smash into another one? Wow. Unbelievable.

And what if he did not see the truck until it was too late- because it was going 1MPH on a dark road with no lights on?

What is unbelievable is that you have decided to support- or maybe forgive- the killing of the driver when you do not know the facts- other than he had an illegal amount of alcohol in his system.

Did he try to swerve, did he lock the brakes up, did he just crest a hill or come out of a blind turn?  YOU DON"T KNOW.  All you can say is he was drunk and it's his fault automatically so eff the dead loser- and that's a load of shit IMO.

Say I am driving home from a restaurant- under the limit- and someone texting runs a red light broadsiding me, their kid gets ejected because of being unrestrained and is killed- the other driver loses their shit and shoots me because I smell like beer- are you going to throw me under the bus for it and support the driver?

 

It's probably my schooling- but how did he know the other driver was drunk in the first place?   He give him a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer?  You really make a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions based on few facts- otherwise known as prejudice.  For all you know the officer may have ticked the father for being in the street with a dead vehicle- especially if it is as it seems- a rural 2 lane road with no streetlights and possibly a 55MPH speed limit. 

Of course it is irrelevant anyway as to whether someone commits a murder- at least to people that don't want to give people free passes to kill people.

[EVT1]

Curious what you would think about the rich kid that killed , what was it- 4 people- if one of the other parents blew his little head off?  Or maybe they knifed him in his hospital bed.  Would you be ok with that?  Not guilty?

And I should also mention being in a roadway blocking traffic is illegal- just ask the Brown family- they shoot people for that shit in some places.

[Shooby]

There was a trial. I think the FACTS have already surfaced. Sooo, if you have some evidence that he was driving 1 mph like a grandma driving to Sunday school, then please produce that.

[Shooby]

I don't know about the rich kid. Produce a link and I will be happy to read and comment on it.