Father indicted:-Moments after his 2 sons were killed by the driver, the drunk was fatally shot

[The Straight Story]

An Alvin father remained in the Brazoria County Jail Monday, charged with murder in the alleged revenge killing of a drunk driver who plowed into his truck, killing his two young sons last December.

David Barajas Sr., 31, a construction worker, is being held in lieu of $450,000 bail in the fatal shooting of 20-year-old Jose Inez Banda minutes after the Dec. 7 crash that claimed the lives of Barajas' 11- and 12-year-old sons.

"The whole incident is extremely tragic," said Brazoria County sheriff's lead investigator, Dominick Sanders. "The grand jury reviewed it and has indicted him for murder."

Tests showed Banda's blood alcohol was twice the legal limit when his Chevrolet Malibu rear-ended the Barajas' family's Ford 250 truck that had run out of gas on an unlit county road near Alvin, investigators said. The inebriated driver failed to swerve or even apply his brakes before plowing into the truck and crushing Barajas' sons, David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11.

The boys had been helping their father push their disabled truck and were less than 150 yards from their driveway when they were hit. Caleb was pronounced dead at the scene, and David Jr. died shortly after arrival at Memorial Hermann Hospital. Their father escaped serious injury.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Father-indicted-in-death-of-drunk-driver-4270089.php

[Buzz Clik]

1. Justifiable homicide?

The dad's grief and rage are understandable. He has to hope that the justice system is kind.

[Robb]

2. Walks 150 yards each way to retrieve a gun to shoot an unconscious man?

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Sad story.

[pediatricmedic]

8. Temporary insanity

I don't approve of what he did, but I certainly understand it.

[Honeycombe8]

166. Ditto. He lost it. Understandable. If I were on the jury....not guilty. nt

[Katashi_itto]

298. Agree, My Opinion, Not Guilty

I'd have done exactly the same thing.

[Katashi_itto]

260. states have vehicular homicide statutes for this

[ann---]

82. No - it was not in self-defense

it was AFTER the fact. The father is a criminal. The man who killed his kids did so by an accident. Pre-meditated murder is a felony.

[panzerfaust]

94. Yes: The drunk killed by accident, the father murdered by intent.

I can understand his feelings.

I cannot understand his giving in to them.

There is no place in society for those who take the law into their own hands and mete out whatever punishment - including death - that they decide someone else should be subjected to.

If the drunk has a brother, does that brother now have the 'right' to shoot his brother's murderer?

I do not believe so.

But if one is to argue that the father had the right to kill the drunk, then surely the drunk's brother must have the same right of retribution. Then, of course, if the father has a brother ...

Society cannot exist without law.

For those who speak so casually of killing - visit this page Has this Palestinian father the right to kill the next Israeli he encounters? If this were an Israeli child killed by a suicide bomber - would the Israeli father have the right of retribution?

It is easy to talk of killing and death when you have never seen it.

It is law which binds a nation together.

[defacto7]

188. You are absolutely correct!

"There is no place in society for those who take the law into their own hands and mete out whatever punishment - including death - that they decide someone else should be subjected to. "

That goes for the LAPD as well.

[pansypoo53219]

204. driving drunk is NOT AN ACCIDENT.

[theHandpuppet]

274. BINGO!!!

Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious to everyone. Anyone drunk who gets behind the wheel and kills someone is guilty of murder. I have no patience nor sympathy for drunk drivers. "Accident", my ass.

[Trajan]

102. Diminished capacity is a valid defense strategy

Whether you like it or not ...

He will be convicted, but it will not be murder

[panzerfaust]

109. Interesting that it is a truism that one never knows what a jury will decide -

excepting current company, of course.

I have no doubt that mitigating circumstance will be, as they should, considered.

I also have no doubt that I do not want to live in a society where, if someone injures or kills a member of one's family, that one has the right of retributive justice. That is why we have laws.

As Kestrel points out below (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2367689) how did the father determine that the 'drunk' was, in fact, drunk and had not suffered an incapacitating medical emergency? This was only determined at the autopsy of the murdered (ok, killed) man.

Tough to sort that out at the roadside.

[sendero]

120. Really?

Anyone drinking that much will smell, I promise you that.

In fact, if a cop pulls you over and you had a single drink an hour ago, he will know you were drinking, period, every time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

123. "The man who killed his kids did so by an accident." No, the man who killed his kids

is/was a fucking criminal himself. HE IS A MURDERER! HE decided to get drunk, then get behind the wheel of a 2 ton death machine. Those innocent childred didn't decide to get killed by a fucking drunk! I have no empathy, nor sympathy, for a drunk driver.... he got what he deserved... I would have done the same thing

[ann---]

128. Very sad to

see such a post on DU.

[Ghost in the Machine]

131. Do you have kids of your own??

If so, to what lengths would you go to, to protect them, or to avenge their deaths from a murderous piece of shit drunk driver who had just killed them?

It's even sadder to see someone having sympathy for a murderous fucking drunk who just killed two children.

[ann---]

133. No, I don't have sympathy

for the person who killed these children. What I DO have is respect for law and order. Only in UNCIVILIZED countries does the victim's family AVENGE the death of another. Did you forget you live in America?

We may FEEL like killing the people who harm or kill our children, but to actually DO it is just another senseless murder. Absolutely the result of a violent culture in this nation. Very, very sad to see it on DU. Very sad. I thought the people here were better than that.

[defacto7]

190. I agree with you...

But don't expect DU to be anything other than a microcosm of America in general. It's is no better or worse.

[Ghost in the Machine]

191. "Only in UNCIVILIZED countries does the victim's family AVENGE the death of another. Did you forget

you live in America?"

Oh really?? For the record, I know EXACTLY where I live.... Wayyyyy out in the sticks, in a small town. As for police "protection", it's basically non-existent. We have ONE City Officer and maybe 8 County officers, who rotate shifts and have 3 on duty at any given time. We have been told point blank by the Sheriff that we are "on our own out here, as response time *could* be up to an hour or longer, depending on how busy and/or where the officers are, so just 'do what you have to do to protect yourselves and we'll get there when we can".

Needless to say, we look out for our own, and for our neighbors. 6 miles down the road is a big lake, and the Tennessee River, and we have a saying around here about 'the deep waters, and how many idiots tried to swim away with more stolen logging chain than they could carry".

You see, I *CHOOSE* to live way out here, away from it all, to keep to myself and away from the crime and trouble in the cities, but when trouble comes out here looking for us, we're ready for it and we handle it.

Your mileage may vary...

Ghost

[cliffordu]

200. Yep.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

226. Good for you.

Sometimes self-help is the answer.

[ann---]

228. No wonder

there will never be peace in this world.

[orleans]

246. oh please!

how condescending ARE you really?
must be SO lonely sitting way the hell up there on that throne of yours.
"better than that"
"peace in this world"
give me a break!

oh wait--maybe you're right. maybe it's all ghost's fault that everything is so screwed up. matter of fact, it's probably ghost's opinion that caused the father to shoot the drunk driver, that caused the driver to drive drunk, that made the man drink in the first place.

right?

[Helen Reddy]

284. +1 n/t

[MichaelHarris]

211. Did the shooter know

at the time he committed murder if the driver was drunk or medically challenged, say a heart attack victim? There are reasons we shouldn't "fly off the handle" and react. There are reasons we don't endorse vigilante justice. Your words, "what lengths would you go to, to protect them" He didn't protect them by killing someone after the fact, they were already dead. What he did do was take the law into his own hands.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

231. Good thing the driver wasn't diabetic.

Not to mention one of his kids was still alive when Rambo was retrieving his shootin' iron.

I guess I would have been more concerned about getting help for my kids.

[sabrina 1]

266. He wasn't protecting his children, he was seeking revenge and that is a crime

in a civilized society whether you like it or not. Someone killed someone very close to me, wrongfully, it happens every day in fact, yet most of us do not grab a gun and go kill the person responsible. I can't even imagine doing that despite the pain and horror we endured, it never occurred to anyone in my family.

If you do not like living in a civilized society where taking matters into one's own hands, you might like Somalia eg. I prefer to live in civilized country and wish that for all the people in the world. Civilization evolved because the other way, this man's way, did not work for society.

And I agree with the poster you are responding to, it is sad to see these kinds of posts on DU or anywhere for that matter, but there are so many of them lately maybe we should just stop pretending to be civilized and abandon the rule of law altogether. It sure would save a lot of money I suppose.

[cliffordu]

135. Tell us all about your expertise with posts on DU.

I'd have killed the motherfucker with my hands.

[ann---]

141. And, yet another

violent outburst from a DU poster. Very, very sad for our country.

[cliffordu]

146. Yes. How very very sad.

Maybe you think the drunk driver should have killed all three??

At least then the talk of violence wouldn't give you the vapors.

[ann---]

229. No, I think the

drunk driver should be held to justice for what he did. And, it's not I who is getting the vapors from the talk of violence. It is those who want to take the law into their own hands and be as evil as the guy who killed those kids - not on purpose.

[cliffordu]

230. Well, gosh.

Thanks for your concern.

[white_wolf]

160. Disgusting.

Does the concept of rule of law mean nothing to you. Should we just go to a vigilante system where we can kill whoever we wish for any perceived wrongs? That's what you advocate for.

[cliffordu]

172. Bzzt. Nice try.

perceived wrongs??



Lesse - my two kids dead at the side of the road due to a drunk driver?

Which perceived wrong are you talking about, the 11 year old or the 12 year old??

[white_wolf]

176. It doesn't matter. As has been pointed out before the guy could have had a medical condition.

The dad didn't know he was drunk, he could have had some kind of medical condition for all the dad knew. Face it you are advocating for a system where people are allowed to take the law into their own hands to make themselves judge, jury, and executioner. Sorry our system does not work like that and no system of justice has worked like that for thousands of years. Do you know why? Because it is dangerous and inaccurate as all hell. When did avocation of vigilantism become allowed here?

[cliffordu]

179. LOL.

You're killing me....



By the way - I believe that vigilantism is where you'd (not you of course) go actively seek to hurt others. As in hunt them down.

This fucking guy just saw his children slaughtered by a drunk driver.

So he killed the prick. Temporary insanity. Not vigilantism.


I wouldn't have gone to get the gun.

I'd have killed him with his own fucking car battery.

[white_wolf]

181. Then you and hopefully this guy would be charged with manslaughter.

This guy will be very lucky if he gets off with nothing, he is likely facing charges of manslaughter which is appropriate for this crime and it was a crime. He killed someone who posed no threat to him at the time.

[cliffordu]

182. Well. Yep you are completely right

But I'd be happy.

[defacto7]

192. and how many years have you spent in prison?

You have no concept of it, it seems. You would not be happy. You may not have done differently, you may not feel sorry for killing, but you would not be happy.

It's pretty clear you care about your kids enough to feel rage at the thought of them being hurt or killed, that is understandable. But if you really care, you have better get your head on straight and think about their security above your rage. Otherwise, your surviving family will be devastated without you if you do as this guy did. Which is more important, your love for your family, or your rage?

[cliffordu]

198. I did 18 months before I was 16

Digging ditches in a county boy's ranch.

I understand what the consequences are for violence.

Sometimes, blood must be payed for with blood.

Oh, and those kids? Their security is gone. They are dead.

I think it is YOU who don't understand what was at play here.

Their father has nothing left.

[defacto7]

201. Nothing?

I do know what is at play here. As for you, I see where that rage comes from.

[cliffordu]

202. No. You really don't.

[defacto7]

207. OK

Be well.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

234. One was still alive.

[cliffordu]

235. Well, fuck. That changes everything.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

238. Who leaves their injured/dying kid to get a gun? You?

[cliffordu]

239. Was there enough life in the kid to actually TELL he was alive

of are you just makin' stuff up?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

242. Did the father (or you) have a medical degree and/or an EEG machine.

The medics took the kid to the hospital. Maybe they should have gone home to get their popguns to join the party?

[cliffordu]

243. LOL.

You're funny!

[Ghost in the Machine]

203. Perceived wrongs??? What is there to "perceive" about a doucherocket getting plastered

and then getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, with no regard for his own life, or the lives of others, and murdering your children in the process? Every drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car is a potential murderer on the loose.

[white_wolf]

205. It's the principal of the matter.

You don't have the right to take someone's life. You don't have the right to declare yourself judge, jury, and executioner. We have a system to deal with crime. We don't need street justice.

[cliffordu]

233. The next time you are standing over the bodies of your dead children

(GOD FORBID)
Let us know how that works out.

[krispos42]

157. Not really

I might well have done the same thing. To pretend that people acting in moments of unimaginable stress and anguish won't lash out at the source of their pain is foolish.

The justice system will deal with him for his actions. If he decides that prison is worth killing a person, then we really can't do anything to stop him, now can we? We can just lock him away so he can't hurt anybody else.

[Drahthaardogs]

145. Yes. A murder was murdered. DDs are murderers.nt

[defacto7]

194. This is true.

n/t

[ann---]

232. And he should have been held to that

crime - just like the father who murdered the driver. He, TOO, is a murderer and should spend the rest of his life in jail. If he has other children, he just took their father away from them for being a hothead - and having a GUN. Guns kill people. People who are unable to control their anger should not be carrying a gun. See what happens?

[Drahthaardogs]

257. Really, control your anger...Serioulsy?

After watching your two sons killed by a sloppy drunk you think this is about self control? Better go check and see if the goats are still on your bridge. Foolishnes...

You know what, I had to edit this. This constant pacifism is what is wrong with the Democratic Party today. A man watches some drunk asshole run his kids down the street like a goddamned dog, in a fit of range goes home and gets his gun, and YOU want to make this about a lack of self control? Do you really think he was capable of self-control in that moment? Is it all fucking unicorns and kittens in your world??????? Do you eat with your pinky finger sticking out and sip Earl Grey tea?

What the hell is wrong with you? I do not condone this man's behavior, but I sure as hell would not convict him of 1st degree murder. You on the other hand, say he has poor self control. For God's sake, get a grip and get down off your high horse and come visit the rest of us regular folks in the real world.

I have news for you, most of the rights the Democratic Party got for us were TAKEN. They were not GIVEN to us by electing the right person. It took blood, sweat, and tears to make a difference.

[Debbie357]

152. I feel the same way!

[Honeycombe8]

167. If the driver had lived, he would've done a long prison stretch for homicide. nt

[cliffordu]

173. Maybe.

[Honeycombe8]

175. I really think that's a given, clifford. Drunk driving and killing people. That's a 1-2....

you're going to prison. It's called negligent homicide or something like that.

[cliffordu]

177. In some states.

I've heard of drunks killing cyclists and then get to walk.

[ann---]

236. That's where the justice system comes into play

That murdering father was the judge, jury and executioner when he killed that man. That is not the way America works - except in hicksville where people think they have the right to AVENGE a crime without going through the system.

[CreekDog]

256. he's not a murderer

he's not anything anymore.

[ann---]

247. p.s.

Daily Words of the Buddha for February 15, 2013

One should not kill a living being,
nor cause it to be killed,
nor should one incite another to kill.
Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.

[Ghost in the Machine]

255. Where was Buddha, God, Allah or whatever make believe sky fairy you worship

when these kids were killed?? And don't come back with some "it was their time" or "god had other plans for them" or "god needed them in heaven more than their father needed them on earth" bullshit, either. That shit doesn't cut it with me.

[Union Scribe]

265. That was a totally unnecessary attack post. nt

[white_wolf]

271. You do realize that no one worships Buddha, right?

You do realize he isn't a "sky fairy" he was a real person, most historians accept that. So the your attack makes no sense since no Buddhist would make any of the arguments you mentioned in your post. If you're going to attack someone's religion you should at least understand it otherwise you just come across as ignorant.

[Ghost in the Machine]

275. "You do realize that no one worships Buddha, right?" To which Buddha do you refer?

*Why* do people buy little ceramic Hotei, the "laughing buddha" (sometimes also referred to as "the fat buddha&quot , the "god of prosperity", figurines and rub his belly while praying for riches to be bestowed upon them?

Hotei, the same one often mistaken for the lord buddha, and

"One tale of the Thai folklore relates that he was so handsome that once even a man wanted him for a wife. To avoid a similar situation, Phra Sangkadchai decided to transform himself into a fat monk. Another tale says he was so attractive that angels and men often compared him with the Buddha. He considered this inappropriate, so disguised himself in an unpleasantly fat body."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai#Phra_Sangkajai_.2F_Phra_Sangkachai

Or is it "Gautama Buddha", whose time of birth and death are widely disputed, much like our Jesus:

"The time of Gautama's birth and death is uncertain: most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[10] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[11] [note 3] However, at a specialist symposium on this question held in 1988 in Göttingen,[10] the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates. These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all other historians.[12][13]

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

(again, much like our Jesus)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

How about his conception??

Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[web 5] and ten months later Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Conception_and_birth

Oh yeah, and also the one who married his own cousin at age 16! Maybe he was "Redneck Buddha" (which could have been a spelling for "Bubba" back then, huh?



So *which* "Buddha" do you speak of, white_wolf? One of these?:

Buddha, meaning "Awakened one" or "Enlightened One", may refer to:

[edit] BuddhismGautama Buddha, founder of Buddhism, clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama), personal name said to be Siddhārtha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha), epithet Śākyamuni (Sanskrit; Pali: Sakyamuni or Shakyamuni), commonly known as "The Buddha"
The Buddhist concept of Buddhahood
The Buddhist concept of Buddha-nature
Buddharupa, a statue or other representation of a Buddha
Other Buddhas
Main article: List of Buddhas
Other figures considered to be Buddhas by various Buddhist groups include:

Budai, the Laughing Buddha, a figure in traditional Chinese culture

Adi-Buddha, the primordial Buddha

Akshobhya, one of the Five Wisdom Buddhas of the Vajrayana
tradition of Buddhism; lord of the Eastern Pure Land Abhirati

Amitābha, one of the Five Wisdom Buddhas of the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism; principal Buddha of the Pure Land sect

Amoghasiddhi, one of the Five Wisdom Buddhas of the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism

Dipankara, First Buddha of the current world age

Tonpa Shenrab, Buddha of the Bön religion

Ratnasambhava, one of the Five Wisdom Buddhas of the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism

Vairocana, one of the Five Wisdom Buddhas of the Vajrayana tradition of Buddhism; embodiment of Dharmakaya"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(disambiguation)

Don't you EVER speak to me about religion and ignorance, without first looking in a mirror, my friend. I studied many religions, before deciding I'm an atheist, who happens to follow *some* Buddhist and *some* Pagan/Wiccan paths, but primarily blaze my own paths. I invite you to read The Worlds Sixteen Crucified Saviours: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/index.htm and get back to me, ok?

By the way, white_wolf, your user name has Native American connections. It pains me to see you use it, as it is the same name given to me during a Blackfeet Naming Ceremony. How did you come to use it?

Peace,

Ghost

[white_wolf]

289. The person was quoting the historical Buddha.

As for Buddha being a god, sorry, but I will take the word of the various Buddhist practitioners, and monks such as the local Lamas at the nearby Tibetan retreat, I have spoken with over your own. T. Furthermore your attack was rude and uncalled for as the poster made none of the arguments you claimed so there was no call to lash out like you did. I am an atheist as well, but that is no excuse to attack someone who was posting a pretty harmless quote and wasn't in anyway making any of the arguments you implied he/she was. If that person had made any of those "God wanted it this way" or "it was his time argument" then I would be right there with you condemning him/her for it, but they didn't. You were simply rude for no reason. Finally, my name comes from a series of Polish fantasy novels, the Witcher series.

[Ghost in the Machine]

290. I never said that the poster said any of those things, I just told them NOT to say them to me

... because I already heard all that bullshit when I lost a 5 year old nephew in a freak accident....

As for Buddha being a god, sorry, but I will take the word of the various Buddhist practitioners, and monks such as the local Lamas at the nearby Tibetan retreat, I have spoken with over your own.

So, should I take the word of all the various Christian practitioners, and the leaders, such as the local preachers in all of the near-by churches, who claim to talk to God/Jesus (and that God/Jesus talks back to them) over your word, or my own?

Sounds really sane... a woman dreaming of a 6 tusked elephant piercing her side, then giving birth 10 months later, huh? Can we say "Immaculate Conception"? Isn't it also odd that, just like Jesus, nobody really knows the exact date of his birth or death. Seems to me that someone that important to religion and/or history would be more well documented. Not to mention the passing down of stories and legend orally, for 400 years, before it was written down sounds a lot like Jesus, too... yes? We all know how stories grow and get embellished over time, don't we?

I am an atheist as well, but that is no excuse to attack someone who was posting a pretty harmless quote and wasn't in anyway making any of the arguments you implied he/she was. If that person had made any of those "God wanted it this way" or "it was his time argument" then I would be right there with you condemning him/her for it, but they didn't.

Seeing as we're both atheists, I don't see much point of having a pissing contest over religion... do you? As for your statement "that is no excuse to attack someone who was posting a pretty harmless quote and wasn't in anyway making any of the arguments you implied he/she was.".. Re-read my headline and following first sentence inside this post. If you can find anywhere that I "implied" that she said that, please feel free to copy and paste it for me, and everyone else, to see. You won't be able to, though, will you? All you will find is that I *implored* her *not* to come back with comments like that because, again, see my title and follow-up first sentence to this post.

Peace to you and yours,

Ghost

[white_wolf]

291. If you didn't imply the poster made those arguments then what was the point in your post?

We both agree the poster didn't make those arguments, the poster wasn't likely to make those arguments so your post was simply an unnecessary attack for no reason. It was simply rude and uncalled for. And yes when it comes to questions such as "is Buddha considered a god by Buddhists" I will take the word of the people who practice that religion over some anonymous poster on in internet. This whole sub-thread is pointless though so I'm going to bow out. Good day to you.

[Hippo_Tron]

180. Grief and rage don't justify killing someone

They are certainly things that ought to and will be considered at his trial and potentially his subsequent sentencing, where the jury will likely determine that he ought not to be punished with as much time as someone who committed a pre-meditated murder, because odds are he does not pose that kind of threat to society.

[AgingAmerican]

210. More likely a crime of passion

His sentence will be reduced somewhat because of the circumstances.

[Aristus]

3. Give him 30 minutes in jail and take away his gun.

Justice served. He's suffered enough. The drunk driver? Well, it's clear he was never feeling any pain...

[Logical]

15. Wow, love your twisted logic! Nt

[Ilsa]

137. I don't think there is anything the court can do to him

To make him feel worse than he did the day his children were murdered by the drunk driver. I doubt he'll ever have remorse for his actions. And I can't blame him.

[cliffordu]

148. Neither do I.

If that makes me a bad man, well......

[Marrah_G]

249. How about his family, are they feeling pain?

Should we be able to kill others in a rage?

[ladjf]

4. I believe that the father has as much guilt in this incident as the drunk driver. He allowed his

two young boys to remain in the road behind their disabled truck, in the dark as another vehicle
approached. Were the tail lights of his truck on? Were there any other places adjacent the road that his truck could have been pushed clear of the roadway? What was the reason the truck ran out of gas?

[yardwork]

5. Read the article. They were pushing the car back to the house.

[ladjf]

6. I read the article. 150 yards is a long, hard task that would require at least ten to fifteen

minutes. That's too long to leave a disabled vehicle in the road in the dark.

[yardwork]

7. I'm sure that the lights were on. The driver would have needed them to see.

The fault lies with the driver who crashed into the car ahead of him. No brakes, no swerving. twice the legal limit for intoxication.

[snooper2]

12. really? was it uphill? downhill? steady grade?

You never grew up country

We pushed shit for well over a mile before....sucks turning the power steering with no-power of course

[Ed Suspicious]

54. Yes. Things go down a bit differenty in rural America. I have spent more time than I would like

to have pushing stalled cars back home.

[cali]

10. seriously? As much to blame?

As much to blame as a drunk driver? Please.

[ladjf]

23. Yes. I was serious. It hurt me to realize that the sons died unnecessarily. The drunken driver

didn't put the children in harms way. The father did.

1. Running out of gas is a result of negligence in most cases.
2. Asking boys 10 and 11 yrs old to push a disabled vehicle at night on a public road for hundreds of yards is inherently dangerous.
3. The wife and baby should have been out of the truck especially as the other truck approached.
4. As the oncoming truck neared, he should have told his boys to get out of the road.
5. The collision could have happened even had the hitter been sober.
6. Every decision the father made was wrong and proved to be fatal for his sons.

[OriginalGeek]

25. What. The. Fuck?

The DRUNK driver put EVERYONE in danger when he decided to drive drunk.

[ladjf]

27. That's true. But, had the father shown a reasonable level of prudence, the boys would not been

vulnerable to the drunk driver.

[OriginalGeek]

29. I don't think he was doing anything illegal

He was pushing his disabled truck to his driveway and was nearly there on an unlit road. He had a reasonable right to expect underage assholes wouldn't be driving drunk on the same road.


If someone hadn't decided to do something illegal we wouldn't be here in this thread.

[ladjf]

33. DUI illegal, dumb, dangerous and wrong. I am not defending the drunk's role in this tragedy.

Pushing the trunk on the road in an emergency is not illegal. But, I'm not thinking about what
was legal or not. I'm thinking about how the accident could have been avoided even though there
are drunk drivers on the roads.

[Ilsa]

143. There is a lot if this in south Texas, where there is pleny of poverty,

Especially around Brazoria. This is a big agricultural area with migrant workers, too. We tend to look out for others on our roads, because the cars down here are less likely to be new, more likely to get broken down, and the poorer people in this area sometimes run out of gas, or, their gas gauge is broken and they forgot to fill it regularly. Lots of times we stop and help each other out.

This isn't Highland Park in Dallas with Jaguars, Lexuses, BMWs, and Mercedes, all well-cared for by a professional mechanic. We look out for each other here to prevent tragedies. The drunk should have stayed off the road.

[TorchTheWitch]

273. leaving a vehicle in the road may be illegal

It certainly is dangerous to oncoming traffic particularly on a dark road. When one's car becomes disabled the driver is expected to move it (if they can) to the side of the road, and if they can't to at least put on flashers, use flares or otherwise warn oncoming traffic that there is an obstacle in the road that is dangerous to oncoming traffic, and call the police so that they can block the road, put out flares and direct traffic around the disabled vehicle or detour them to another road.

In this case, the father did everything wrong in attempting to push the vehicle home instead off to the side of the road, putting his kids at the impact point behind the vehicle which could also have blocked the vehicles tail lights, and not having someone watching for oncoming traffic to warn both oncoming traffic and themselves of an approaching vehicle.

I actually agree with you that the father put himself, his kids and any other vehicles approaching on that road at hazard by leaving the vehicle in the road and attempting to push it home. It very well could have been a totally sober driver that came up on the disabled vehicle in the road and not have been able to stop in time to not hit it. Putting your kids at the point of impact behind the disabled truck to push it was horribly negligent of the father especially when being behind the truck their own bodies could very well have blocked much of if not all of the tail lights on the back. The person that struck the kids/truck need not have been drunk for the accident to have occurred given the circumstances. At least one person should have been up the road a pace giving warning to any oncoming traffic as well as to the family members pushing the vehicle.

As for the father shooting the driver, he had no idea at the time that the driver was drunk and in a rage shot the driver who could well have been totally sober and hit the kids because of the father's own negligence in having his kids in such a dangerous position at the back of the truck and no one to warn oncoming traffic that there was a vehicle disabled in the road. And if he was in such an uncontrollable rage at the driver that hit his kids who he himself placed in such a dangerous position in the road that he couldn't help himself by going to get his gun and shooting the person he had to have been so mentally incapacitated at the time to not even wonder whether or not the driver he shot was drunk nor attempted to find out. Any reasonable person would have been grief stricken and wanting to get immediate help for their severely injured kids - while one of his kids was alive and dying in the road instead of getting help for that child he instead decided it was more prudent to go get his gun and shoot the person that struck them when it was HE himself that PUT his kids in such a dangerous position.

I find it both amazing and horribly sad that this father's response to his severely injured kids that he put into such a dangerous situation for being struck by a car was to get his gun and shoot the driver that hit them rather than attempt to get help for his kids. What parent could have anything else on their mind but their severely injured kids in such a situation??? How is it that he left his kids in the road with one of them still alive instead of rushing to them and screaming for help and cradling them in his arms??? I'm flabbergasted that his reaction was to ABANDON his dying kids and go get his gun to shoot the driver all when he himself PUT his kids in that dangerous position that caused them to be struck by an oncoming car that he had no idea was being driven by someone that was drunk. That's exactly the kind of dangerous mentality of a person who should not be anywhere near firearms. His reaction to his kids being hit and severely injured to ABANDON those kids laying bleeding and battered in the road and kill the person who struck them instead in not only not reasonable, it's not humane.

[ladjf]

285. Good post! You summarized the entire event in a thoughtful way. nt

[cliffordu]

150. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are just the best.

[treestar]

99. Still possible that other people's negligence is involved

And this case is an example.

[joeglow3]

39. Just like that damn women wearing her skimpy outfit and drinking

she was asking to be raped.

[cali]

46. codswallop and ugly, heartless, blaming the victim shit.

"The inebriated driver failed to swerve or even apply his brakes before plowing into the truck and crushing Barajas' sons, David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11."

The fault lies largely with the drunk driver.

[LiberalAndProud]

134. ^^ this! ^^

Thank you cali. The poster's judgemental tripe makes me irate.

[Bake]

47. Blame the victims. Well done.

Nothing at all about the DRUNK DRIVER.

Great job.

Bake



Oh, in case you need it:

[ladjf]

57. I presumed that everyone understood that the drunken driver was guilty. But, no one seemed

to be concerned about the father's apparent poor judgement. I thought it was worth pointing
out.

[OriginalGeek]

106. And I can't speak for the others

but I don't think the father's judgement was all that bad. You run out of gas, you're almost home, you get out and push it home. You got 2 strong kids that wanna help? get 'em back there too. It's a residential road isn't it? It is not unreasonable to get out and push your car home when you're that close.

Shouldn't have to worry about a drunk driver smashing into you.

As for other assumptions - earlier in the thread you asked why didn't the father get his kids out of the way? How in the hell can you possibly know he didn't try? Why do you assume he even had a chance to try? What if the drunk driver just came barreling around a corner with no warning at all?
You said running out of gas is often caused by negligence and that may be true. But why assume that was the case here? I can think of one specific time in my life that I ran out of gas because my gas gauge quit working. It was stuck on a 1/4 tank and the only reason I found out is because I ran out of gas.

If I wanted to be really safe I'd worry about all the possible things that could happen and just stay home. But nobody can live that way. You gotta go out and you should be able to expect people won't break the law while you are out. Blaming the father for his kids death is despicable and cruel. It's not worth pointing out his failings at all because he didn't have any goddamned failings!

At least, until he went home and got a gun.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Running out of gas is the result of money problems in most cases

and 150 yards is about the length of two city blocks---hardly a long distance.

True, one must exercise caution when dealing with a disabled car. However, how dangerous it is depends a lot on where the car is on the road (i.e., in a travel lane vs. on the shoulder,) whether the road is heavily or lightly traveled, whether it is a through road without stop signs or other traffic controls,, whether the road is a high or low speed road, the weather conditions, and visibility (and no, nighttime doesn't mean that the visibility is always poor since street lights and light bleed from commercial and residential structures can change that.) Without knowing these factors it's really hard to assess any level of responsibility on the father for this tragedy.

[cliffordu]

149. Your ability to parse this is absolutely astounding.

[hay rick]

156. Welcome to Vigilante Underground.

Two wrongs make a right. Read the memo.

[defacto7]

196. There is nothing wrong

with doing "slightly" dangerous things in this country. It how you teach your kids to take care of themselves. Was it dangerous? Probably, but it's not like he was letting them play with loaded guns or something. It's what people do. Otherwise we live in some kind of bubble.

The driver who hit them? If he was drunk... murder. Plain and simple. If he was not drunk and didn't have control of his car... manslaughter.

Now, unfortunately, they are both murderers. And the father who went for the gun? Just the fact that he went to get them puts him in a much worse case scenario. If he has other family, he just sentenced them to his own fate.

[Lizzie Poppet]

248. The father was clearly in the wrong.

Although I consider the drunk's crime to be a somehow more reprehensible murder, the fact is both committed murder.

I also have to admit I'd have probably done the same thing in the father's place. But I'd have been wrong, and I'd know that, in my heart of hearts.

[OceanEcosystem]

263. You're putting far too much blame on the father. n/t.

[ladjf]

286. In terms of degrees of blame, you may well be correct. However, I was trying to point

out that the presence of drunk drivers is a reality and that parents have an obligation
to foresee possible dangers on the road. In this case, neither the father or the mother, seemed to realize the imprudence of being out on a County road at night with no warning lights. And, the danger of taking off on a car trip when the gasoline supply is dangerously low.

My original post probably would have been more accurate had I changed from "the father is as guilty as the drunk driver" to "the father's decisions may also have contributed to the fatalities of his sons".

I'm reminded of a tragedy that took place last summer where a pontoon boat, loaded with one adult and 12 young children was hit at 10:00 P.M in the middle of a large reservoir, by a speed boat whose operator had been drinking. Two boys were killed, the speed boat driver was arrested and convicted for his role in the accident. There were numerous articles in the paper about how terrible the speed boat's driver was for operating a boat under the influence. But, not one word was mentioned about the fact that a small pontoon boat was seriously overloaded, no mention about the lighting, or the prudence of one adult taking a dozen children for a ride at 10:00 on a large lake. Perhaps there were good answers to all of those questions. But, they should of at least been addressed.

[KurtNYC]

14. He is responsible for shooting the drunk

but the rest of the conjecture in your post is disgusting.

[ladjf]

28. What is truly disgusting is that the father didn't tell the boys to get the hell off the road as

the truck approached. Probably, he assumed that the oncoming truck saw them and that there
was no danger. That assumption proved to be fatal.

[Ikonoklast]

43. Yeah, that other driver being a dead-drunk asshole had nothing to do with it.

Blaming the victims is so easy, isn't it?

You blame the father for the illegal actions of another person and the resulting deaths and disaster.

Wow.

Drive drunk a lot, do we?

[ladjf]

51. I blame both the drunken driver and the father for endangering innocent people.

In no way did I "blame the father for the illegal actions of another".

I blamed the father for being guilty of poor judgment by unnecessarily placing his children in harms way. I gather from the article that the accident happened in a residential area, rather than out in the country. He could have left the trunk on the side of the street, or if possible, rolled it off the road. It is doubtful that the oncoming truck was going so fast that there was insufficient time to get off the street before the collision.

Personally, I don't drink at all.

[Ikonoklast]

56. And the father could have had the kids stand on the side of the road, and the drunk driver STILL

might have run them over.

The kids could have been standing on their front porch, and a drunk driver could STILL have smashed their bodies into pulp.



Hypotheticals are all crap, stick to what actually happened.

Two kids were killed by a drunk driver.

That is a fact.

[Orrex]

122. You're omitting an important fact

The father deliberately shot and killed the driver when that driver posed no threat to him.

That is also a fact.

[cali]

48. your posts in this thread are truly and deeply disgusting. vile.

[ladjf]

55. To you my posts are "disgusting and vile" but if one parent who read this thread was prompted

to avoid the mistakes this father made as a result of hearing my opinions about safe behavior, I don't mind the insults.

I have not condoned drunk driving. I have criticized imprudent parenting.

[John1956PA]

67. I agree with you opinion on safe behavior.

I pointed this out in my post (#60) below. Pushing an F-250 (I own one), even with the assistance of two strong adults, is a very strenuous undertaking. The exhaustion one experiences from doing so impairs one's ability to jump out of the path of sudden danger.

[ladjf]

69. Thanks. As you might have noticed, I've been severely been "flamed" as a result of my post.

It wasn't my intentions to blame the father for directly causing the accident, but rather, for not
making prudent safety decisions that could have prevented it.

The culpability of the drunk was a given.

[panzerfaust]

101. Thank you for sticking to reason, in the face of insult.

I am astounded, and saddened, by how many posters here condone the murder of a defenseless man.

[cliffordu]

185. I'm astounded and saddened by you.

Not really, but I like the quote.

[cliffordu]

184. You sound like you were on the scene.

Monday morning quarterbacks always like to bloviate their bogus posits with alacrity.

You win!!

[CBGLuthier]

19. as much guilt?

I do not really want to have a hidden post at this time so I shall merely THINK my total disdain for your comment and by extension you.

[timdog44]

38. I agree with you.

[defacto7]

197. Too bad the father of those kids didn't have half the

forethought as you do! He would still be able to take care of the rest of his family.

[magical thyme]

42. We also don't know the speed of the drunk driver

There may not have been much time to react. If they are pushing the car facing forward, which is how it's normally done, they might have barely time to hear the car, see lights in the road; turn around and it's over. If another car was ahead of the drunk driver's car, and that car swerved around them, they wouldn't have even had that much notice.

We don't know how he ran out of gas, but it was not necessarily negligence. In older cars, the gas gauges sometimes die. More than once in my life, I've seen friends checking tablets they calculated their gas use on to know if they need to fill up. One simple math error or transposition of numbers and they are screwed.

And not too long ago, at a gas station I watched a woman freak out when I pointed out that the gas she was putting into her car was gushing out the bottom. So gas tanks sometimes die as well.

On the other hand, I have zero tolerance of drunk driving. There is no excuse or good or acceptable reason for that.

I do imagine that any punishment they inflict on the father will be minor compared to the punishment he probably is inflicting on himself.

[cleanhippie]

151. "What was the reason the truck ran out of gas?" WTF does THAT have to do with ANYTHING?

[alphafemale]

302. He at least contributed.

A sober driver might have hit a disabled vehicle on the road in those circumstances.

And he may have shot and killed a sober driver as well.

[ladjf]

303. Or, had the driver survived the crash and had not been shot, he might have had grounds to sue

the father and perhaps the mother as well for reckless behavior, i.e. leaving the stalled vehicle on what was probably and unlighted county road and for allowing his children to be in the roadway while traffic was in the area.

[fried eggs]

9. I would be surprised if a concealed carry person didn't react this way

after seeing his or her family killed by a drunk driver. I know this man wasn't concealed carry, but he was close enough to his weapon to use it in a moment of rage.

[Xithras]

11. Jury nullification

If someone just killed two of my kids in front of me, their odds of survival are directly dependent on their ability to run faster than I can. If someone kills your kids, anything you can do to them before the police arrive is 100% justifiable.

[rbrnmw]

24. While being for gun control as the mother of 5

if I were on the jury I would have a strong urge to say not guilty. Kill my kids in front of me I would go totally insane

[Ilsa]

140. I think I'd do the same thing if my head

Hadn't already exploded in grief. It wouldn't surprise mope if the father is determined to be insane with grief over the loss of his two sons.

Personally, I'm glad another drunk driver is off the roads.

[stevenleser]

158. Yep. nt

[ManiacJoe]

269. Jury nullification. I can see that happening.

[The Magistrate]

13. I Expect I Would Vote To Acquit, Sir...

[stevenleser]

159. Same here. I dont think any jury convicts him. nt

[Logical]

16. LOL, I love how vigilante justice is ok on the DU, so GOP oF us. Stupid! n-t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. It's really been creeping me out.

Thank you for saying it. More proof of the rightward lurch of this place.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Not a rightward lurch. Compassion and understanding of extreme anguish of the moment.

Compassion and understanding are liberal traits.

Now if he had waited for a few days and then killed the drunk driver, it would be a very different story.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. So that's what they're calling it now.

"Compassion and understanding" for extrajudicial killings.

Back to the Gungeon with you....

[GreenStormCloud]

44. How would you feel if you had just watched someone kill your children?

I don't think I would be sane for awhile. There was a case some years ago in which a man shot and killed a karate instructor that had sexually abused the man's young son. I don't remember the state. The jury refused to convict.

[Xithras]

52. There was just another case last year

Guy in Texas caught a guy raping his 5 year old daughter in the act. The father beat the rapist to death with his fists. No charges.

It's not vigilantism, it's a basic mammalian instinct to protect your children and kill or injure those who have hurt them.

[dsc]

72. totally different cases

In this case the man went 150 yards to get the gun, 150 yards back with the gun, and shot a defenseless man to death. In the case you are referring to the man saw a guy raping his kid, punched him a number of times, and then called 911 and begged them to hurry up so the man could be saved.

[Xithras]

74. It's a matter of time, not distance.

His kids were dead. He ran several hundred feet, grabbed a gun, and ran back.

A person in reasonabe shape can run 150 yards in under 20 seconds in an emergency. Someone in good shape, amped up on an acute stress response, could do it in under 15 seconds. The run back would be about the same.

This entire process of leaving the scene, getting the gun, returning, and shooting the driver required less than one minute. It's not like he walked 10 blocks and had time to cool off and come back to his senses. How sane would you be 60 seconds after watching your children die?

[dsc]

75. It is still legally a vastly different case

The first case in undoubtedly defense of another, no ifs, ands, or buts. The second case isn't. It might be deminished capacity. It might be temporary insanity. It might be involuntary manslaughter. But it isn't, on any level, defense of others.

[Xithras]

81. I'm not talking about the law.

I'm talking about recognizing the fact that certain responses are biological and instinctual. Striking out at someone who is harming, or who has just harmed, your children is one of those.

[panzerfaust]

105. So you would be OK with the brother, or father, of the murdered

drunk killing this guy?

If your neighbor is backing his truck down the driveway and your kid darts behind the truck and is killed - then you would be fine with shooting your neighbor to death?

What sort of society do you want to live in?

Do you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about, what you are advocating?

[JI7]

169. you are describing an accident, in the other case we are talking about a guy raping a little child

[Hassin Bin Sober]

237. John Gotti "disappeared" the guy who ran over his kid by accident.

[TorchTheWitch]

292. a) both his kids were not dead

One of the kids died later at the hospital, and though one of them died at the scene we have no idea how long it took that child to die... he very well could have still been alive while dad was walking home to get his gun.

b) He didn't run home to get his gun, he walked. He was seen walking back to his house by a neighbor who also saw him walk from his house back to the accident scene and go up to the vehicle that struck the kids immediately after which the neighbor heard gun fire.

He had plenty of time on that walk of 150 yards each way to his home and back to consider what he was doing. I also find it monstrous that instead of trying to get help for his children who lay bleeding and battered in the road while at least one of them was still alive that his first reaction was to walk home, get his gun, walk back and shoot the driver of the vehicle that struck the kids thereby ABANDONING his dying children in the road. What reasonable person does that??? I can't imagine any other reaction by a parent who has just seen their kids severely struck by a car thinking anything other than incredible grief, trying to get immediate medical attention for them and cradling them in their arms begging them not to die and screaming for help.

I'm completely astounded that anyone here thinks that ABANDONING your dying children in the road and WALKING the equivalent of two city blocks home to get your gun, walking back and shooting the driver of the vehicle that struck them was the least bit reasonable especially when it was HE himself that put his children in such a dangerous position at the impact point at the back of his disabled truck that he left in the middle of the road having no one to watch for any oncoming traffic and having no idea that the driver that struck his kids was drunk at all and simply didn't see his disabled vehicle in the middle of the road in time to avoid it. Had he done the prudent thing and pushed the truck to the side of the road while one of the people in the family watched for oncoming traffic and then walked home to call friends or neighbors to come and help push his truck home while someone watched for oncoming traffic to warn of an obstacle in the road no other driver drunk or otherwise would have had the opportunity to hit his kids. Incidentally, the mother and an younger child as well as a baby were sitting in the truck all this time. Why couldn't the mother watched for oncoming traffic if not to warn another driver but to warn her older children that were in such a dangerous position at the back of the truck pushing it?

This was just pure vigilante justice, and this father is exactly the wrong type of person who should own a gun. Anyone whose immediate reaction to their kids being struck by a car when they themselves put those kids in such a dangerous position for being struck in the first place is to abandon their dying children in the middle of the road and go home and get their gun and walk back and kill the unconscious driver of the vehicle that struck them is not a reasonable mentality nor is it a humane one.

[Bake]

50. You obviously don't have children.

So it's easy for you to say all this shit. Somebody kills my kids? They're gonna answer to my two friends, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

Bake

[Tommy_Carcetti]

97. I have children, and I can't forsee myself ever going vigliante.

Not even in the depths of grief.

And post Sandy Hook, the notion of a horrific tragedy involving my own kids has admittedly crept into my mind more than once. And yet nothing in those hypotheticals involves me going Smith and Wesson.

[defacto7]

199. Same here.

n/t

[Travis_0004]

112. The person without compassion was the drunk driver.

Maybe if he had cared about his fellow man a bit more, he wouldn't drive drunk putting everybody at risk.

I'm not saying what the dad did was right, but if he were to plead not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, I wouldn't convict him.

[dairydog91]

35. US states still accept a provocation defense or something like it.

Even if it only lowers the degree of homicide committed. People aren't expected to be perfectly rational, and it would be pretty bizarre to expect a parent who just saw their child mowed down by a drunken idiot to respond in a cool, rational manner. It's not "vigilantism" so much as its accepting that some events would cause virtually any human being to lose the ability to act rationally, and recognizing this in the law as a limited defense, especially where deliberate intent may be required as an element of the crime.

[Xithras]

45. We are not machines. And it's not vigilantism.

Hunting someone down a week, a day, or even an hour later would be vigilantism. But reacting violently in defense of your offspring, or in grief at the moment of their death, is a programmed biological instinct shared by every mammal on this planet. Kill a baby elephant while its mother is watching, and see what she does to you. That same core programming is shared by every human, lion, dog, bear, and giraffe on this planet.

You cannot punish someone for having a basic biological response to a horrific situation like this. His acute stress response had kicked in, he was in shock, and that core programming that says "this predator just killed my babies" went active. What he did, and what nearly any of us would do, was entirely understandable.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Exactly. Very well explained.

We all know what happens if you get between Momma Grizzly and her cubs.

[ann---]

83. I'm with you on this!

All these "kill 'em dead" posts are the product of a violent culture we live in.

[CBGLuthier]

17. Since he did it immediately after the event

I would accept any plea based upon diminished capacity. No one is in their right mind moments after seeing their child slaughtered by a careless fool.

[Marrah_G]

18. I am very torn over this story

Although I understand his rage, now an addition person is dead without a trial, gunned down in anger, not self defense.

[HappyMe]

22. I'm in the same boat.

Shooting that guy won't bring your kids back. It just made the dad's life worse.

[Tien1985]

277. He may not care

If someone killed my son, in front of me, out of sheer carelessness, I can't even imagine the grief and anger.

I don't think I would care very much about my life or my condition, not for a while, until some of that grief numbed.

It may take him some time to care about his life again.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. Unimaginable grief combined with rage

I cannot claim to be a fair judge on this. Not sure what I would do.

[X_Digger]

62. +1 n/t

[patrice]

26. .

[gollygee]

30. People shouldn't be carrying around guns

because they go and shoot people whenever they're angry. Is he right to be angry? Of course! Does that mean it's OK for him to go and shoot the guy? No. If he didn't have a gun with him, he might have chased him down and hit him, but he couldn't have shot him. It's just to easy to lose it and kill someone when you're angry if you are carrying a gun.

I'm OK with gun ownership. I do not like concealed carry permits, or for that matter any kind of carrying around of guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. He was not carrying a gun with him.

The accident happened very close to his home. He walked 150 yards to his house and got his gun, came back and killed the drunk. Walking 300 yards is not enough time to cool off after that kind of tradegy. It is enough time to work up a killing rage.

[gollygee]

37. How do you screen for stuff like this?

We talk about screening the mentally ill, but mentally ill people don't necessarily get violent, and people who are not mentally ill can very well get violent. How do you screen to see who can be trusted not to shoot someone when they get angry? I have no idea.

Thanks - obviously I didn't read it thoroughly.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. He was waaay beyond "angry".

I would call it insane rage.

[surrealAmerican]

70. There really is no way to screen for this.

All people are "at risk" for behaving irrationally in extreme circumstances. Sometimes that irrational response is heroic, sometimes it's horrific, sometimes it's neither. Owning a deadly weapon will increase the risk that you may actually kill somebody - even if you don't normally contemplate such things.

[RobinA]

36. Yeah, Really

This is exactly why I will never own a gun. If I don't have one, I will never shoot anyone.

[RedstDem]

63. would you feel differently about it

if the man beat the drunk with his tire iron?
same outcome...

[gollygee]

68. This has been said so many times here at DU

but I'll say it again.

It's easier to kill someone with a gun than with other things. You can do it from farther away. If X number of people are killed each year with guns when people are in a rage, and people didn't have guns available, people would still get killed when they were in a rage, but the number would be much lower than X.

[get the red out]

79. THIS!

EXACTLY

[RedstDem]

117. agreed

[NickB79]

142. In this specific situation, that wouldn't be true though

He had to walk 300 yards (150 yd each way) to get his gun, come back, and shoot the drunk SOB.

Even if he sprinted the entire way, we're talking several MINUTES transpired before the murder occurred.

I would have strangled and beaten that bastard to death in MUCH less time than that, had this been my family.

I don't see this incident having much to do with the issue of gun control, either pro or con.

[sir pball]

129. The law actually does say this might be OK.

No time to get too elaborate as I have to go to work, google up "extreme emotional disturbance." Quick summary from the NY Courts site:

First, the defendant must have had an extreme emotional
disturbance.

Second, in committing the homicide, the defendant must
have acted under the influence of that extreme emotional
disturbance.

Third, there must have been an explanation or excuse for
such extreme emotional disturbance that was reasonable. The
reasonableness of that explanation or excuse must be determined
from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under
the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

If you don't think this case meets those criteria..

[defacto7]

208. Wow....

That make the world a better place, doesn't it. This way we can learn how to use anger and stress to commit crimes instead of learning to be civil. Wonderful!


(sarc)

[liberalmuse]

34. So if he didn't have a gun, he probably wouldn't be in jail.

This is a perfect example why people shouldn't be carrying around guns. The mental anguish caused this man to act in a way he probably couldn't have, had he not had a gun at his disposal. And now he's in jail for doing what a lot of people faced with that situation would have done if they'd had a gun. I hate stories like this because on one hand, I think most people could understand why he did what he did, but on the other hand, he bipassed the courts and took justice into his own hands, so if he is let off, it will set a precedent. Do we really want to live in this kind of society?

[dairydog91]

41. You think he was going to stand around and let the drunk sleep it off peacefully?

The drunk was apparently incapacitated, and the father was in a fury. There was a case here on DU just yesterday where a father found a man raping his daughter and the father beat this man to death using just his fists.

[John1956PA]

60. My emotions might have turned to rage as soon as I saw that the car driver was drunk.

I do not not know what I would have done if I had been in the father's shoes and witnesses the horror of the car crashing into the rear of the F-250 with the sons in between. My horror might given way to hatred as soon as I recognized that the car driver was intoxicated. The longer I looked at him, the more enraged I would have gotten.

On the other hand, as the owner of an older F-250 having an unladen weight of nearly 5,000 pounds, I know that pushing one of these trucks is a very strenuous task. (The truck in this case might have been heavier than mine if it had an extended cab.) I would not undertake pushing one of these trucks, even if I had two strong adults willing to assist me. In this tragedy, I feel that it was imprudent for the father to muster such an effort, especially for him to enlist his young sons as helpers. It had to occur to the father that an impaired or ill driver could come along and strike him and the sons. When one is exerting a great deal of muscle power in pushing a vehicle, he or she is not able to quickly jump out of the path of sudden danger.

[RedstDem]

64. if that drunk driver wasnt drunk

I would have probably still killed him...

by any means at my disposal.

I know myself, I've thought about it a lot & and this one thing I'm sure, hurt my family, I will kill, and spend my time behind bars..

[Robb]

71. How about half your family?

Guy's still got two more kids who will likely now grow up with dad in jail.

I don't blame the man for his action, but I sure as hell blame him for ignoring the consequences the rest of his family now faces.

[RedstDem]

115. I'm not saying it would be a well thought out plan

I just think if were to find myself in that situation, where my sons are slaughtered in front of me, I would be in the same shoes that guys wearing.....

[defacto7]

206. and it happens every day, all over the world.

When does it stop? Never? Do we ever get better as humans? to not get drunk and drive? to not kill out of rage? to seek justice, not revenge?

It just gets uglier and uglier.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. You think lack of a gun would have stopped him?

In that kind of rage he could have torn the drunk apart with his bare hands.

[Politicalboi]

96. Then why did he go back for his gun?

Using a gun is less messy than ripping someone apart. Besides, the drunk may get up and kick his ass. I hate drunk drivers like everyone else, but the dad IMO needed the gun to kill him.

[sir pball]

130. No, if he didn't have a gun

He'd have probably (deservedly) beaten the drunk to death with the lug wrench from his pickup. EED, Not Guilty.

[Victor_c3]

61. I'm probably a piece of crap for saying this

but if anyone seriously hurt or killed my two daughters, I'd absolutely do the same thing.

[get the red out]

77. Well

You are not a piece of crap at all for saying that. NOT AT ALL.

[Logical]

171. And should go to jail! n-t

[bluestateguy]

65. I do not condone him killing the drunk driver who killed his sons

(But notice I didn't say I condemned it either)

[kestrel91316]

66. He'll get no sympathy from me. How did he know that the driver was drunk?

Diabetic ketoacidosis can look and SMELL the same.

Nobody gets to be judge, jury, and executioner, especially in the heat of the moment.

WTF has this country come to when even supposed liberals support extrajudicial revenge murders?

And if you are planning on responding to this with a tirade about drones, you can just stop RIGHT NOW.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. Kestral --

This is the new and improved DU (and country) -- that stuff you speck of is so 2000 -- quaint, and utterly unnecessary in today's Cowboy Bush on Steriods America.

No need for a jury, no need for a judge -- if what an alleged suspect has done is bad enough and/or enrages you enough, you are perfectly justified in blowing their brains out/beating them to death/burning them to a crisp.

Woo hooo yeehaw, motherfucker!

[GreenStormCloud]

293. That hangman's knot is tied incorrectly.

It is supposed to have 13 loops.

[Cali_Democrat]

91. Great point!!!

Thank you!!!!

[panzerfaust]

108. Absolutely!

As a physician, I am embarrassed not to have thought of this (though it is not correct that someone in DKA smells of etoh - they reek of acetone, which is different).

There are also other medical conditions which could have occurred: Seizure, heart-attack (the youngest person I have taken care of with an MI was 14), hypoglycemia, intracranial aneurysm, simply falling asleep ... the fact that it was alcohol intoxication would not have been known until the postmortem on the murdered man.

Thank you for pointing out something which is too important to have missed.

[kestrel91316]

110. We veterinarians are awesome, right??

[white_wolf]

161. Seriously this is crazy.

I can't believe people are defending this guy's actions and saying he did nothing wrong. He doesn't deserve to be tried for 1st degree murder, but he deserves some punishment for what he did. He took the law into his own hands and killed someone.

[defacto7]

209. hear, hear!

That's what I'm talking about!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

245. Yep. How many cops have beaten the shit out of "drunks" only to find out....

...... later the drunk was a diabetic.

[Marrah_G]

250. I had those same thoughts

[Go Vols]

73. Its Texas,

he will probably walk or get probation.

[Ilsa]

144. High poverty area. People can identify with having

A broken down car or truck and just trying to get everyone back home. I doubt they'll lose sleep over a drunk driver being removed from the highway, either.

[Go Vols]

186. yep

[get the red out]

76. It's sad

I actually can absolutely understand why the father did this. And if I were the drunk, I would rather be dead than have to live with killing those boys. But now the Dad has to live with all of it, and I feel sad for that and his terrible loss.

If I were on the jury, I'd not vote to convict him. I know that is offensive to most here. I believe if we didn't have the gun culture we have we wouldn't have to face so many issues like this.

[ann---]

85. Were there any other children in

the family? If so, now they won't have a father - except the memory that he is a murderer.

[get the red out]

88. I doubt they would see him as a murderer

Someone who made a poor choice under extreme duress probably. If it were my father I would regret what happened but not see him as a murderer.

[ann---]

78. Vigilante justice cannot be tolerated

Especially with guns galore in this violent country.

[get the red out]

89. I wish I were a good enough person

to agree with that, I really do.

[unblock]

80. classic "crime of passion", he'll get acquittal.

people are routinely acquitted for killing after finding their lovers in the act of being unfaithful.

killing someone after they plowed into your kids is easily 10 times more understandable.

a reasonable man would not have done so, but in the heat of the moment, many a reasonable man isn't particularly reasonable.

[Jersey Devil]

86. That is not grounds for acquittal

It would be grounds for finding he had a diminished mental capacity and therefore guilty of a lesser charge, like manslaughter.

More likely, in my opinion, he will claim that he was temporarily insane and the insanity does not continue. That would be grounds for acquittal and his immediate release. He would have to claim that he was so overwhelmed by emotion and passion that he lost his mind and did not realize what he was doing. Tough to prove but a jury would hang their hat on that easily under these circumstances.

[panzerfaust]

111. "...grand jurors rejected a "crime of passion" defense..."

"... grand jurors rejected a "crime of passion" defense because Barajas had time to reflect about what he was planning to do when investigators contend he went home to get a gun."

This statement is in the article referenced by the OP.

[unblock]

113. the standards and information presented to a grand jury are different from an actual trial.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

84. I'm sorry, I can never get behind vigilante justice, no matter what the situation.

Last edited Wed Feb 13, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see a plea deal for voluntary manslaughter, and I'm fine with such a plea and lesser sentence. Clearly there is a state of mind issue.

But even after placing myself in the man's shoes, I can't myself totally excusing his actions. There's no way to condone vigilantism in a civilized society, no matter how much sympathy you may have for a victim.

[aikoaiko]

90. Grief can lead a person do extreme things.

I can only imagine the massive grief and pain at that moment.

[FarCenter]

92. One out of twelve is all it takes to get a hung jury or a not guilty verdict

There should be that much common sense in the deliberation room.

[Macoy51]

297. My Thought as Well

My thoughts as well. All he needs in one steadfast person on his jury to acquit. Hopefully, the DA will realize this and not go forward with the trial.


Macoy

[Nye Bevan]

93. Amazing how many people on a progressive website condone one guy being judge, jury and executioner.

There is no way this guy knew for sure that the driver was drunk. You can smell alcohol on someone's breath after one beer, and he could have been disoriented from the crash. In a civilized society we need to let the legal system take its course. Now I understand the extreme anguish and provocation, which should be taken into account, but I think the father needs to go to prison.

The "yeah! Shoot the fucker" and "burn him alive in the cabin" crowd make me somewhat disheartened. Does everyone really want to live in a country where people who do bad things are routinely executed summarily, because the people who execute them know they will get away with it?

[RedstDem]

116. he didnt murder the driver because he was drunk.

he murdered him for retribution for killing his son's..
one of which died onsite from what i gather in the article, and the other son died later in the emergency room. he would not have known that, at the time of the murder, I think.

I've posted that i understand his actions, and that I would probably have acted the same, but not that doing so would be proper or civilized...

[white_wolf]

162. It doesn't matter why he did it. He still took the law into his own hands.

A civilized society does not allow retribution killings.

[JI7]

164. the mental state of the accused does matter

[white_wolf]

170. Yeah it does and he will probably be charged with manslaughter.

I am not advocating he be charged for murder, but I take major issue with all these people who want him acquitted and and acting like he didn't do anything wrong.

[JI7]

174. i think what may hurt him is he did not admit to having shot the guy

and how he went to his home to get the gun and came back.

especially if the drunk driver was unconscious after the accident and he shot him in that state.

the other case mentioned as a comparison is the guy who beat to death a guy who was raping his daughter. in that case he had walked in on the crime and it happened right after. and the father called to report what happened and he felt bad for having killed the guy.

[white_wolf]

178. The fact that he had to walk to his house get the gun may damn this guy in the end.

It could be argued that he had time to clear his head and think about his actions. Also, he was in his home so he likely had access to a phone. He could have called the police and let them deal with it, but he choose not too. I feel sorry for the guy, but I can't condone his actions.

[MrSlayer]

95. I'd never vote guilty if I were on that jury.

His two young sons killed in front of him by this drunken asshole? It would be incredibly difficult for me to do anything except let him go. The loss of his kids is punishment enough.

[Cali_Democrat]

100. How did the father know the guy was drunk?

Did he administer a blood and urine test? How could the father have been sure he was drunk and or not suffering from some medical condition? At what point would it be OK for any American to serve as judge, jury and executioner?

Just curious.

Your thoughts?

[MrSlayer]

104. It's fairly easy to determine if someone is drunk.

Hang out at a bar sometime. It's really not too difficult.

The fact is that the guy was drunk so all the speculation is moot. He didn't have a medical condition, he wasn't having a seizure and he wasn't in a fugue state, he was wasted.

Some of you guys act like you have no emotion at all, like you're a dispassionate automation that coldly calculates what the constitutionality acceptable action would be as someone tears your children apart.

The father is human and he acted out of terror and rage as anyone with a soul might. I hope he walks.

[Cali_Democrat]

107. We have laws for a reason

As somebody mentioned upthread, certain medical conditions can give the appearance of drunkenness. How could the father have been sure the driver wasn't suffering from a specific medical condition? We now know he was drunk, but the father at the time had no way to determine for sure if the guy was drunk or not. It's also not up to the father to make that determination. That's what blood tests are for.

That is the problem.

Thankfully a grand jury has indicted him for murder. Summary executions should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

[Logical]

168. And you should never be on a jury! n-t

[MrSlayer]

187. Why? I'd be fair.

I'd find his actions justifiable. If I didn't find a person's actions justifiable, I'd convict them. I'm always a good juror.

[white_wolf]

258. That isn't the law.

Juries aren't supposed to determine what is fair. They are supposed to find the facts, because what you think is fair may be very different from what someone else thinks is "fair." To find if someone violate the law as explained to them by a judge. If the law is unfair in some extreme situations then judges do sometimes find ways to deal with those situations, but I doubt any judge would do so in this case.

[MrSlayer]

261. Jury nullification exists for a reason.

It's basically when a jury acquits a person that they think is guilty but doesn't believe they should be punished or they disagree with the law. Obviously there is more to it than that but it's a pretty good nutshell explanation.

You don't have to go along with the system.

For instance, I'd almost never convict a person on drug possession charges. Absolutely never for marijuana.

[treestar]

98. Those kids should not have been pushing the truck

Father's negligence is part of the cause of it.

And he does not get to dispense the death penalty right then and there.

[Trajan]

103. He will be convicted of manslaughter

... The heat of the moment aspect will be credible for this case ...

[Left2Tackle]

114. Only thing I'm questioning is why he left to get a gun?

I probably would of pulled the guy out of the car and beat him to death. I'm not saying that would be right, or that I shouldn't be criminally prosecuted. But after just seeing your kids get smashed... yeah I won't be surprised if he gets an acquittal.

[MadHound]

118. Good, vigilante justice should never be condoned. n/t

[Orrex]

119. Except when people decide that the vigilante murderer had a really good reason

Then it's open season on the mob-approved target du jour.

[Orrex]

121. That subject line is disingenuous

Father indicted:-Moments after his 2 sons were killed by the driver, the drunk was fatally shot

It wasn't "moments after," unless we define "moments after" to mean "several minutes after the fact."

Also, the subject line declares the guilt of the driver while implying uncertainty about the father's actions. "The drunk was fatally shot," rather than "the father shot the unconscious driver."

It comes across as a clumsy attempt to spin the facts, which are horrible enough in their own right not to require further embellishment.

[The Straight Story]

125. The subject line is the original with the underwritten (self deleted other post

Because I said it was the original, it was but a mesh of the two from the article so I was inaccurate

[Orrex]

127. Ah!

Then I blame the other guy.

[galileoreloaded]

126. If a clearly drunk man killed my two sons in front of me

through his negligence, I would be waiting face down, hands behind my back for them to hook me up because there are 3 departed at that crime scene.

I would take my chances with that jury any day of the week, and whatever they thought my disposition should be I would gladly accept with deference and gratitude.

Just how it is.

[EastKYLiberal]

139. Yep.

[defacto7]

212. How valiant.

I think courage has a different outcome.

[get the red out]

227. Thank you

[Marrah_G]

251. And that is why we have gang wars

And war. Rage and the desire for vengeance do nothing but cause more rage and more desire for vengeance.

[galileoreloaded]

262. Got kids?

it matters.

[Marrah_G]

276. Yup- I have 3

[joshcryer]

132. This is different from the man who killed the guy raping his daughter.

Simply because a gun was involved (fists = one can claim they didn't intend to kill the person).

However, temporary insanity may be claimed here. And probably with success.

[jsr]

153. The father in the rape case didn't mean to kill

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/texas-abuser-father

On the recorded 911 call, the father can be heard crying, and telling the operator, "I need an ambulance. This guy was raping my daughter and I beat him up. And I don't know ... I don't know what to do."

Later in the call, when the operator tells the caller, "I'm working on it if you can hold on," the emotional father says, "The guy's dying on me!"

(Lavaca County District Attorney) McMinn also told CNN the child's grandfather and aunt both administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

McMinn told CNN she had "never seen a case this clear" in her career.

[JI7]

136. wow, this case sucks in so many ways, drinking and driving and guns

[EastKYLiberal]

138. Glad he got justice before the system let the drunk off easily on a plea bargain. nt

[geek tragedy]

147. Diminished capacity--not a single jury on the planet will convict him of murder.

But, he'd be a free man and the drunk driver would be the one on trial had he not been carrying a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

154. He was not carrying a gun.

He was 150 yards from home and ran home and got his gun.

[obamanut2012]

282. Which is why I would vote "Guilty" for murder

If I was on that jury.

[GreenStormCloud]

295. I would vote for a lesser charge, due to diminished capacity. N/T

[ZombieHorde]

155. Sad. I don't like what the father did, but I don't blame him either. nt

[JI7]

163. i think this Guy not admitting to having shot the Guy might hurt his case

including leaving to get the gun and coming back to shoot him afterwards.

[lonestarnot]

165. No jury in their right mind will convict him.

He was overcome with passionate rage.

[Demo_Chris]

183. My verdict: Not guilty

This is one of those cases in which I really do not care what the law says. I don't even care what the prosecution or defense have to say. If I were on the jury that would be my vote.

[white_wolf]

189. Then I hope no one like you is on the jury.

If you aren't willing to follow the law then you have no place in the courtroom.

[Demo_Chris]

193. I imagine the prosecution feels the same way you do

But I am of the belief that the purpose of trials is not simply to decide whether or not someone violated a law, but whether the law itself is just in this particular situation. For me, I give a LOT of leeway to parents who just watched their children obliterated. What would be justice in such a case?

[white_wolf]

195. Justice would have been to call the police and had the drunk driver charged with manslaughter.

Last edited Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:39 AM - Edit history (1)

That would have been justice. Justice is not declaring yourself judge, jury and executioner. You don't have that right. The father committed a crime here. Under these circumstances I would go lenient on him and would not sentence him harshly, but he does not deserve to simply be let go. You want to talk about the father's kids, well what about the drunk driver's parents? He was someone's son. You don't have a right to take someone's son from them anymore than the drunk driver had the right to take this father's kids from him. I am sympathetic to the father, but I can't condone someone taking the law into their own hands.

[defacto7]

213. It's the open can of worms

that is the most fearful aspect of the vigilante attitude. People either learn to be civil, or the law (or lack of it) shows them how to get away with justified and unjustified revenge.

[Demo_Chris]

217. I hear you, but it's not like this guy is hunting the streets taking out the "trash"

The guy watched his children turned into steaming chunks of humburger, he went and got his gun, and he blew the fucker that did it away. I cannot help feeling for the guy. Quick story:

One day, years ago, my daughter -- who was about seven I think -- was getting ready for her first day at a new school. She spent hours getting ready and putting on her prettiest dress. We were poor then (and now) and this was really the only super nice new dress she owned. She finished then she went outside to wait by the car for me to give her a ride. I can still picture this as clear as if it just happened.

It had been snowing hard all night and the street was a slushy mess, so she was standing on the sidewalk. I walked outside and just as I started towards her I saw some jackass kid in a pickup truck roaring down the street. He saw her standing there, and he deliberately swerved over into a puddle and doused my baby from head to toe in icy road grime and slush. I saw him laughing as he did it. I can still see my daughter, wearing the only nice dress I could buy her, standing there crying because everything was ruined.

My wife came out then I guess, and took her inside. I got in my car and tried to find this kid. I hunted for him for a half hour or more, but I never found him. If I had found him, I was going to kill that fuck. Not a theory, not I was really mad, I was going to beat that piece of shit to death. Slowly.

I am well aware what that says about me as a person, and I would love to say that I am better now, but if someone killed my daughter in front of me I cannot even imagine not killing him on the spot. Again, I am aware that this makes me a bad person in most people's eyes, but I cannot condemn a man who just watched his children obliterated.

[white_wolf]

264. You were going to beat someone to death for ruining your daughter's dress?

The guy was a complete and utter ass and someone needs to have a long talk with him, but as you admit he was a kid. A rude, immature, and stupid kid, but a kid. I'm sorry, but I find your response to his action a lot worse than his own. His was rude and immature, yours was dangerous and sickening.

[Demo_Chris]

267. You will get no argument from me on that score

Of course my reaction was completely inappropriate. Of course attacking some little girl and ruining her school dress is not deserving of all that -- it's arguably not even worth violence at all. Logically it is indefensible, and I won't even bother to try. It makes absolutely no rational or moral sense at all.

That was my point.

In any case, you are going to get your desire. This father is being charged with a crime. This is apparently not enough for you. You feel this guy is guilty, that justice demands he be punished, and you are clearly angry at those who do not share your opinion. So angry, in fact, that you made another thread just to challenge the liberal purity of those who disagree with you, so angry that is this very thread you have called other posters derogatory names.

I have made every effort to be respectful to you and to talk about this as calmly and rationally as possible. I have even gone so far as to share a personal story I am not proud of to illustrate how angry even little things can sometimes make us. But I can see now that you are all too familiar with this yourself. So I will close with this:

It's a FORUM. You are never going to have universal approval or agreement, and on a complicated question like this one, a question dealing with life and death and emotion and horror, you are going to have as many opinions as their are people posting. It's a horrible story about a horrible bloodsplattered tragedy. So lighten up and remember that we are on the same team.

[white_wolf]

268. You know what? You're right about something.

First of all, I apologize if I called you anything derogatory. I didn't mean too. I realize I called your actions sickening, but I wasn't trying to say you are sickening, just that I think your actions in that case were extreme. You have been polite and I am sorry if I've come across as rude. My response to your story was a bit uncalled for and for that I'm sorry. So if I came across as jerk, I'm sorry. Look, I don't have kids so maybe if I was in your shoes I would have reacted the same way, I don't know. As I have mentioned before I do feel sorry for the dad in this case, I'm more worried about the slippery slope issue that it brings up. As for the other thread I made, that I won't apologize for, because it happens all the time on DU. Threads have spinoffs.

[Demo_Chris]

270. No biggie my friend, I wasn't worried either way

I have a habit of coming across in my writing far harsher than it sounded to me in my head. Not saying that YOU have that problem, only that I am familiar with having people read something in a way I did not intend.

As for the other post, YES my actions were sickening. Even later that day I was disgusted with myself and grateful I didn't find that punk. But even today, years later, I can picture my daughter, wanting so much to make a good impression (and that's bloody hard when you are poor -- kids are very judgemental) standing there drenched from head to toe and crying as that jerk drove off laughing at her. Even today it breaks my heart. I wanted very much to do more for her, and I never could. Anyway, that's irrelevant. I was simply trying to point out that people do insane things, especially where their kids are concerned.

[Demo_Chris]

214. I don't expect you to agree with me

I wonder, however, if you are really any more interested in justice than I am.

Why, for example, even have a trial at all? Apparently there is no question the man did it. Under your system, if you do the "crime" that's it. You are dispensing entirely with the whole "I did it and here's why" or "I did it and I think the law is bullshit" aspect of our legal system.

For example, if you are on a jury deciding the fate of a gay couple charged with kissing in public, and they admit to this felonious behavior, are you going to vote guilty? If so that's a insult to justice. The question you are faced with is not whether they kissed in violation of the law, but whether this law is even reasonable. When enough juries do that, laws are changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

In this case you are drawing a false equivalence. The parent of the slain children watched his kids destroyed by a drunk driver, the kids did nothing wrong that might warrant this fate. The parents of the drunk driver cannot say this. They know their son was drinking and driving and he slaughtered some kids. Did he deserve death? That's irrelevant now. In any case it's not exactly the same thing. I think everyone in this case is to be pitied. This is a tragedy. And it will not be corrected, nor justice served, by continuing the tragedy beyond this point.

I would be more than willing to compromise in seeing this father sentenced to some therapy to help him deal with everything that happened.

[white_wolf]

253. Where did you get that I think we should not have trials

It's pretty clear that the father killed the drunk, but if there is some evidence that says otherwise or his lawyer can prove insanity then he should be let go. I don't have all the facts that's why a trial is so important because we try to get all the facts so juries can make a fair decision.

[Captain Stern]

215. In my opinion, this is justified homicide..

..if it happened exactly like it's written.

A selfish asshole decides it's worth the risk(to himself..not others) to get drunk and drive...he kills two people.

Mr Barajas made sure his next victims wouldn't be me or mine. If I was on his jury, I'd vote not guilty.

[RedCappedBandit]

216. Seems many confuse justice with vengeance..

[defacto7]

218. and seem to confuse valiance with having courage.

We really have become an "only me" or a "me first" society.

[Demo_Chris]

219. Justice?

How can there be justice for a horror like this? You want to sit in judgement of this dad, a guy who watched his children obliterated?

[RedCappedBandit]

220. Do I want to sit in judgement of this dad?

No, I don't. But I refuse to agree that his reaction was just.

He acted through emotion. A very understandable response, to be sure. But that doesn't mean his actions were just. It was vengeance, plain and simple, and our justice system does not function through vengeance.

[Demo_Chris]

221. I hear you, I am glad I am not on this jury n/t

[obamanut2012]

281. I agree with you

We can feel compassion for his rage and despair, and still think his actions were wrong.

[Niceguy1]

222. the drunk

Made the choice.

Innocent if i was on the jury. But i probably would have bludgeoned to death though.

[Macoy51]

223. Decide on Justice, Not Law

I would love to be on this man’s jury. I would acquit the man. The jury’s job is not to decide the law, but to decide on justice. There are no winners in this case, but sending the man to prison is not justice, Jury nullification is there for cases like this.


Macoy

[white_wolf]

259. "The jury’s job is not to decide the law, but to decide on justice."

That is highly debatable. This is the same problem as another person I replied to. He said acquitting this guy would be "fair." Who is to decide what is fair or just? That is why juries rule on the facts and law, not on what they consider fair or just, because that is too vague.

[Macoy51]

296. Sorry, I Disagree

Sorry, I disagree. A group of lawyers/judges could decide the legal aspects of the case far better than a jury of your peers. However; the founding fathers included the jury system to allow a the rank and file to say ‘nope, that an’t right’ and acquit. This recognized that no law can cover every possibility and to add a common sense element to the justice system.

Macoy

[obamanut2012]

280. The jury's job is to decide the law, period

Which is why Casey Anthony was, rightly, found not guilty.

[JVS]

224. Note the exemplary use of the passive voice in that headline

[mikeytherat]

225. Where is the line drawn?

Consensus seems to be, "If the driver is drunk, vigilante death is OK." So, what if a driver, who causes a fatal accident:

Is confused (elderly, diabetic)?
Is distracted (phone, radio, passenger, etc.)?
Loses control due to road/weather conditions?
Loses control due to excessive speed?
Simply doesn't see them in the dark?

Is it only drunk drivers causing fatal accidents who deserve death? Or does any scenario involving a fatality deserve another fatality?

Where is the line drawn?

mikey_the_rat

[Hassin Bin Sober]

241. I keep a gun in my car for such situations.

I no longer carry insurance or take sensible precaution.

I just shoot people.

Elderly just get shot in the foot.

Diabetic get kneecapped for not managing their diabetes.

Speeders and too fast for conditions get gut shot and left to die.

Drunk drivers get one between the eye. Blamo!

[WinkyDink]

240. Anyone else remember the ending to "Witness For the Prosecution"?

[Iggo]

244. It's easy to see that they're both murderers...

...because walking and chewing gum at the same time isn't all that difficult.

Come on, people.

[JVS]

254. +1

[Bettie]

252. How sad for everyone

But, there was no reason to compound the tragedy by killing the driver.

Revenge and justice are not the same thing, they are not even in the same neighborhood.

I understand the father's rage and grief. Those two boys are the same ages as my two older boys.

I have to say though, I'd be busy trying to help the one who was still alive, or at least holding him until the ambulance arrived rather than going to fetch a gun or even thinking twice about the other guy.

Maybe the difference is that I'm a mom not a dad...I don't know.

[helveticas]

272. Can't believe they got an indictment

I hope the jury aquits.

[obamanut2012]

279. He deserves to be indicted and go to prison

What the drunk driving did neither cancels out nor excuses what he did. He searched a road for a gun and then shot an unconscious person. Understanding his rage and despair doesn't mean we have to excuse his actions.

It bothers me he left his severely injured son on the side of the road to do this.

[helveticas]

283. Have you never been enraged?

I guess not.

[Orrex]

294. So rage is, in your view, is sufficient justification to commit murder

Heck, maybe the driver was enraged at the two boys. By your calculus, he'd walk free with a verdict of "not guilty by reason of being extremely pissed off."

Quite a world you're proposing.

[Lars39]

278. After having read the article, a few things

got my attention...was the father steering or the mother? If the father, who in the heck expects a 10 yo and a 12 yo to be able to push a truck with 2 adults and a baby in a carseat? If the mother was steering, how is it the father escaped serious injuries while his sons were crushed? Why was his first priority to get a gun and not stay with son who was still alive? Where's the gun? Seems he had presence of mind to dispose of gun after shooting the other driver.

[TheManInTheMac]

287. Good luck finding a jury to convict him.

[madville]

288. If we banned alcohol, cars, and guns

Things like this wouldn't happen as frequently and these people would likely be alive today.

[Douglas Carpenter]

299. It's extremely dangerous for society to justify murder. I certainly hope he is convicted but on a

lesser charge and I hope his sentence considers his state of mind and shows a measured degree of leniency. The lack of critical faculties in some posts here on DU is disconcerting sometimes. I hope people don't really mean some of the things they say. I hope it is only their raw emotions talking - not their minds.

[WhollyHeretic]

300. It looks like one of his sons was still alive when he took the time to get his gun and shoot the

driver. His first actions should have been calling for help not getting a gun to shoot the driver.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

301. All DUers should recognize that DIMINISHED CAPACITY IS A LEGAL DEFENSE, instead of instead of

ignoring the law and saying, without a trial, that the father is guilty of murder.

Some say with certitude that the fact that the father left the scene, went to retrieve a gun, and then shot the drunk driver means that father is guilty of murder. Even first-degree murder.

diminished capacity

n.
essentially a psychological term which has found its way into criminal trials. A contention of diminished capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition or other factors he/she could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he/she is accused of committing, particularly murder or attempted murder. ...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Diminished+Capacity

What about a case involving the shooting of George Moscone and Harvey Milk?

On Monday, November 27, 1978, an upset Dan White went and got his revolver along with extra cartridges before bringing them to City Hall in San Francisco.

Like it or not, his attorney raised the defense of diminished capacity with the result that White was not convicted of murder by was convicted of manslaughter.

The diminshed capacity defense was covered in the papers. The reporters called it the "Twinkie defense."

Any attorney who disregards the defense of diminished capacity would be disregarding the law. Any attorney who represents the father in this case and fails to raise the defense of diminished capacity would be guilty of malpractice.