Fatal shooting of driver after 2 boys killed in wreck remains a mystery
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2971921/posts
It is very possible he could get off light in some parts of Texas
This article has a little more detail:
Grieving father charged in shooting death of driver
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/21111145/2013/02/11/grieving-father-charged
“No one recovered a gun at the site of the crash, but people reported hearing gunshots fired after the accident.
Brazoria County investigators interviewed several witnesses who were present at the accident scene. Those witnesses said they observed David Barajas walk away from the accident site to his home and return to the area before approaching Banda’s car when the gunshots were fired.”
This is the only kind of honor killing that should be allowed.
If I were his lawyer, I’d de,amd a jury trial.
While the grand jury was probably right to indict, the trial jury is the appropriate place for his lawyers to achieve justice. I know I’d have a hard time convicting the father in this case.
If the father did shoot the driver, there is no avoiding the fact that that is murder. However, I don’t think he’ll be convicted because any jury would see this as a case of “temporary insanity” on the part of a parent who has just seen his two sons killed by a drunk driver.
I’m not saying I believe in the temporary insanity excuse per se, but if there is such a thing, this would be an instance of it.
I think they will have a very tough time finding a jury to convict this father with anything more than a couple of years in prison or possibly just some time in a medical/mental rehab facility.
Did he take the law into his own hands? Yes, but I’m not sure too many of us would not have done the same thing.
Don’t drink and drive. Because fathers of kids killed by drunk drivers might cap your ass.
A Latino driving drunk and killing someone? No way.
If I ended up on the jury, my vote would be time served.
We need more of this - much more.
Wish I could be on the jury.
This father may have invented a new charge; “Criminal Justifiable Homicide”. I certainly understand his actions.
Not guilty. Justifiable homicide.
(Although the state should reimburse him the cost of the bullets)
I’ve always felt death was the appropriate punishment for drunk drivers who kill.
The father murdered the man who killed his sons.
His sentence, one day suspended.
If the prosecutor goes for a murder conviction he’s making a big mistake. At most I might vote guilty for manslaughter and then recommend probation. If murder was the only choice I would have no choice but to vote not guilty.
Vigilante justice takes place when a justice system is broken. The justice system doesn’t want to take these drunks and throw the book at them.
When you enact vigilante justice, don’t get caught.
I think this case argues even more strongly for an outcome which recognizes that "normal" behavior may include killing a drunk driver who murders one's children. There would be good justification for believing that the courts would let the murderous drunk off lightly and that the situation could occur again.
There's a possible problem if the children were exposed to an unreasonable danger which might have resulted in their deaths from even a sober driver.
I wonder what the father thought the consequences of his action would be? I'm guessing that he gave it no thought at all.
If I was on the jury, no way would I vote to convict.
Case closed.