[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-dad-david-barajas-acquitted-murdering-man-who-killed-sons-n190286[/quote]
Texas is awesome sometimes.
Got absolutely no problem with this. No problem at all.
Eh?
Do you guys have no problem with this because you believe the jury didn’t convict the man because there was no evidence, or because you believe the jury didn’t convict the man because you believe that the jury thought he did nothing wrong (to which you agree with)?
Edit-
Attempted to bring a butchered sentence back to life. Not sure if I succeeded.
Court adjourned.
[quote]magick wrote:
Eh?
Do you guys have no problem with this because you believe the jury didn’t convict the man because there was no evidence, or because you believe the jury didn’t convict the man because you believe that he supposedly did was right?[/quote]
A little bit of both? Nah, I have sympathy for the dude, but the evidence was weak. The best thing they had was a possible bullet fragment match? Weak, weak, weak.
Ya, if you go by the article there clearly was no evidence to implicate the man for actually committing the murder. Certainly has motive, but nothing to prove that he did it.
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.
I’d say if that was the case, hopefully the jury would consider the lesser included of like Reckless Homicide/Manslaughter.
Then during the sentencing phase, show him the sympathy that he’s due. I think convict, then show the leniency.
I’m familiar with the facts of the case.
Does anyone believe that Barajas did not kill Banda?
I think he killed him, then tossed his gun in some hidden place.
The police, sympathetic to what happened, decided to not investigate all that closely.
As it stands, at least within what the article states, declaring him not guilty is the right thing to do. But if there was evidence, then I believe he should be convicted of murder.
if it wasn’t him… the question remains
WHO DONE IT?? O_O
the great mystery of our time
rekt
If you kill someone in Texas they will kill you back.
Who am I to judge?
[quote]csulli wrote:
rekt
If you kill someone in Texas they will kill you back.[/quote]
‘Needed Killin’ is a defense in Texas 
My friends neighbor in Dallas was a middle aged pilot who was dating a stripper who was living in his house. They got in a fight over something and he ended up getting arrested on a domestic call. When he got out the next day, he return to the stripper and a new boyfriend burning his clothes on the lawn. He calmly walked inside, grabbed a .30-06, shot them both dead in the front yard, then called the cops. He was released on $2000 bond shortly thereafter. I’m not sure what happened or if he was convicted of anything.
Honestly have no problem at all with this whether he killed the guy or not.
[quote]magick wrote:
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.[/quote]
It’s tough. Had the father been carrying and shot him, I’d be okay with the jury letting him go. Going home to get the gun… Makes me a bit hesitant.
I’m not a big fan of someone getting the death penalty for driving drunk, but I’m okay with it if that person kills two young boys like he did.
Sometimes street justice is in fact justice. And I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted to toss a couple at someone that ran over one of my kids driving drunk.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.[/quote]
It’s tough. Had the father been carrying and shot him, I’d be okay with the jury letting him go. Going home to get the gun… Makes me a bit hesitant.
I’m not a big fan of someone getting the death penalty for driving drunk, but I’m okay with it if that person kills two young boys like he did.
Sometimes street justice is in fact justice. And I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted to toss a couple at someone that ran over one of my kids driving drunk. [/quote]
I dunno. I guess I still look at driving drunk and killing someone as just a really careless decision (that most of the time the consequences are not considered), no different than a negligent workplace accident, or a negligent firearm accident. While I can sympathize with the dad and think that the guy should have gotten a very long sentence, if the dad killed him, he murdered him.
Now maybe he would be okay with that, and if someone were to ever do something to my wife and/or child I would be and I would probably do the same thing. Doesn’t change the fact that I killed the guy. When this type thing is vindicated you are playing with fire. I am very torn on this one.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.[/quote]
It’s tough. Had the father been carrying and shot him, I’d be okay with the jury letting him go. Going home to get the gun… Makes me a bit hesitant.
I’m not a big fan of someone getting the death penalty for driving drunk, but I’m okay with it if that person kills two young boys like he did.
Sometimes street justice is in fact justice. And I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted to toss a couple at someone that ran over one of my kids driving drunk. [/quote]
I dunno. I guess I still look at driving drunk and killing someone as just a really careless decision (that most of the time the consequences are not considered), no different than a negligent workplace accident, or a negligent firearm accident. While I can sympathize with the dad and think that the guy should have gotten a very long sentence, if the dad killed him, he murdered him. Now maybe he would be okay with that, and if someone were to ever do something to my wife and/or child I would be and I would probably do the same thing. Doesn’t change the fact that I killed the guy. When this type thing is vindicated you are playing with fire. I am very torn on this one. [/quote]
I think this is a case where I could buy and insanity plea. If someone did something like that and mangled my wife and/or child in front of me I’d probably beat them to death with my bare hands and not stop smashing their face in until I could no longer lift my arms. I’d only be reserved about him going home for the gun, though I don’t know how long of a time period that was. I imagine that sort of rage could last a while.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
Just curious what you folks would have said if there happened to be strong evidence that he committed the murder, but the jury let him go anyways.[/quote]
It’s tough. Had the father been carrying and shot him, I’d be okay with the jury letting him go. Going home to get the gun… Makes me a bit hesitant.
I’m not a big fan of someone getting the death penalty for driving drunk, but I’m okay with it if that person kills two young boys like he did.
Sometimes street justice is in fact justice. And I can’t say I wouldn’t be tempted to toss a couple at someone that ran over one of my kids driving drunk. [/quote]
I dunno. I guess I still look at driving drunk and killing someone as just a really careless decision (that most of the time the consequences are not considered), no different than a negligent workplace accident, or a negligent firearm accident. While I can sympathize with the dad and think that the guy should have gotten a very long sentence, if the dad killed him, he murdered him. [/quote]
No doubt he murdered him.
However I guess the issue with me is was it justified. Lets say I get awoken by a strange sound in the middle of the night, grab my maverick and head towards the noise coming from my daughters room. As I get closer I can tell it is muffled screams and grunting. I kick in the door and some meth head is trying to rape her.
Say I get a clean shot and take it. I’ve murdered him. Do I deserve to go to jail? Or is it justified?
I lean justified.
So that is why I’d be more okay with this DD’er getting shot if the father had the gun on him at the time. Once the father had to leave to go get his revolver it sort of diminishes the situation because he’s had time to let his front brain take back over. When in the moment, his cognition has likely shutdown at the horror of watching his young children be slaughtered.
It is, all the time. The Castle Doctrine is basically this, except you don’t have the ability to stop the driver…