Posted on 02/12/2013 10:04:43 AM PST by Pan_Yan
HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas man has been charged with murder in the fatal shooting at a crash scene of a suspected drunken driver who authorities say plowed into his sons as they helped push their family's broken-down pickup truck along a dark, narrow, rural road.
David Barajas, 31, and his sons, 12-year-old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb, were about 50 yards from their Houston-area home when a car crashed into them. David Jr. died at the scene, while Caleb died later at a hospital.
Neighbors said they heard gunshots minutes after the Dec. 7 crash near Alvin, about 30 miles southeast of Houston. Jose Banda, the 20-year-old driver who hit the boys, was later found shot in the head. His death was ruled a homicide.
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. Evidence showed one shot was fired, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at charter.net ...
Adding to your analysis the realization that the man killing your kids will probably receive a token “slap on the wrist” the scene is set for vigilante justice. Based solely on the information presented I tend to support the father.
Ok, that leans it in favor of the father.
The clincher is, given the situation and layout of the road, had a non drinking driver approached this scene, would they have had an accident?
I don’t know. But him getting back before any first responders could make it under 10-15 minutes I bet. How long is “temporary” to the law?
No.
Anything to achieve the glory of having another thread added to one’s counter! The ambition is clear.
I got it. After over a decade I'm wise to Revolting Cat!'s shenanigans. I just felt like explaining why I didn't see a previous article.
LOL! If I was worried about my counter I'd post articles about Rubio or Palin so that people would actually read them instead of mostly stuff about obscure African wars. And you can ask my boss ... I don't have any ambition.
OK, OK, let’s stop needlessly bumping this thread.
I’m bumping this thread because I want more people to see this Revolting cat! fight.
This father certainly didn’t know what the BA of the driver was when he deemed execution was the remedy. I’d say he’s looking at many years behind bars. Way too much info lacking to draw a conclusion. It’s too easy just to place blame on drunk driver in many cases. I’d like to know more about what happened to the truck in the first place. Was the breakdown unavoidable; out of gas, neglected maintenance, hell maybe dad was drunk when he worked on the truck and screwed something up.
Truck ran out of gas, dad and boys pushing it home mom driving 50 yards from home. Dad injured along with one son other dead at scene. Other driver 20 or 21 depending upon report. Dad goes free if I was on the jury (wrong state so no I cannot be).
.........I don’t think “temporary inanity’’ includes walking home, getting your gun, and returning to the scene of the crime... all before the ambulance got there?.......
Temporary insanity does not necessarily have a short time limit. If my son was killed in that manner I don’t think I would be in my right mind for a VERY long time. Forget the few minutes it would take to walk 300 feet total
A reasonable and experienced, sober driver will not outrun his vision. This means that at night, or on a winding road, you drive only as fast as to stop in front of an obstacle that you just saw. Around bends you drive always assuming that there is a boulder on the road, or a bicyclist, or a deer - you should be able to stop in time after you see the problem. I also saw chickens on the road, and pheasants, and wild turkeys, and people riding horses, and hikers on foot, and a cow; one time I turned around a corner and saw a line of stopped cars - they were there because of an accident ahead, and the road was blocked; the only LEO in charge had no traffic cones to warn drivers before the bend.
This means that a good driver typically wouldn't have the accident regardless of what is happening on the road. But I would make an exception if the victim intentionally reduced their visibility, beyond what is reasonable. For example, if the taillights are off at night and covered, so that their internal passive reflectors are also inoperative, and the truck is painted matte black. In this case only an investigation can tell if an average driver with an average night vision could be expected to see the obstacle in time to stop.
Not my state either. But in my mind this was a perfect storm of bad decisions by both the drunk driver and the dad. If the drunk driver didn’t get behind the wheel, nothing happens, if the dad doesn’t drive around on empty nothing happens, if the dad walks home to get some gas maybe a crash happens but the kids don’t get killed. If the drunk driver wasn’t 21 others will be implicated.
The difference being that the father wasn't doing anything illegal. As soon as the drunk got behind the wheel, he was breaking the law.
True on your if thens but only one was criminal the DWI.
Beat me by a minute.
Believe it or not running out gas could get you a fine in some areas. I just don’t think this guy is going to avoid jail, not saying I wouldn’t have done something similar, very doubtful I’d walk home for a gun more than likely bare hands or a tire iron.
Believe it or not running out gas could get you a fine in some areas. I just don’t think this guy is going to avoid jail, not saying I wouldn’t have done something similar, very doubtful I’d walk home for a gun more than likely bare hands or a tire iron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.