22 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
22 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Trial of Texas father accused of shooting driver who killed 2 sons raises legal, moral issues

by Joe Mobley
15 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
The trial will focus on prosecutors' allegations that Barajas shot 20-year-old Banda in the head...

Minutes earlier, Banda's car struck Barajas' sons as they pushed the family's broken-down truck down a dark, narrow road just 50 yards from their home. Twelve-year-old David Jr. died at the scene; 11-year-old Caleb died at a hospital.
This is going to be interesting.

Trial of Texas father accused of shooting driver who killed 2 sons raises legal, moral issues | Fox News

Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    You have THAT right! Historically, and by the law, they have to throw him in jail! They have done the SAME thing so many times that it is incredible. In some cases, it is the EXACT same thing, a father killing the one responsible fo killing his son(s), AND/OR DAUGHTER(s), where he KNEW that that happened. Race, proof, motive, and evidence have generally not come into play.

    So it is open and shut! He is "guilty" of "murder", and "should" be treated as a "killer". On the other hand, it is PUBLIC! He has SUPPORT! He is HISPANIC! HEY, if the law worked, he only cut out the middleman!

    ALSO, if he IS convicted, there is a question as to the severity of the sentence, and reaction to appeals. That is always a tossup.

    Frankly, I have ALWAYS thought that if the original death is due to known incompetence or malice that such a killing was justified.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9451581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      We have a justice system - and we need to let it work.

      It's not a "justice by opinion" system or a "justice on demand" or "those who shout loudest get what they want" system...it's a legal system that grinds slowly but gets the job done.

      I'm frankly tired of the social media causes. If you kill someone, I may understand why you did it...but it's not up to me to approve or disapprove of it.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9451842].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        We have a justice system - and we need to let it work.

        It's not a "justice by opinion" system or a "justice on demand" or "those who shout loudest get what they want" system...it's a legal system that grinds slowly but gets the job done.

        I'm frankly tired of the social media causes. If you kill someone, I may understand why you did it...but it's not up to me to approve or disapprove of it.
        Sure it is, by your voting for the people who make the laws and by making your voice heard if you disagree with the laws we have.

        And as the article points out, sometimes we do have 'justice by opinion' when a jury nullifies the charges, or a grand jury refuses to indict.

        Evidently the shooting isn't quite as slam-dunk as it would seem at first glance. No gun found, no gunshot residue on the supposed shooter, no witnesses of the shooting.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9451941].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      You have THAT right! Historically, and by the law, they have to throw him in jail! They have done the SAME thing so many times that it is incredible. In some cases, it is the EXACT same thing, a father killing the one responsible fo killing his son(s), AND/OR DAUGHTER(s), where he KNEW that that happened. Race, proof, motive, and evidence have generally not come into play.

      So it is open and shut! He is "guilty" of "murder", and "should" be treated as a "killer". On the other hand, it is PUBLIC! He has SUPPORT! He is HISPANIC! HEY, if the law worked, he only cut out the middleman!

      ALSO, if he IS convicted, there is a question as to the severity of the sentence, and reaction to appeals. That is always a tossup.

      Frankly, I have ALWAYS thought that if the original death is due to known incompetence or malice that such a killing was justified.

      Steve
      Did you even read the article? If accurate, it is far from 'open and shut'.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9451948].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Steve -

        I agree and I think juries get it right more often than not. The turnoff for me is the "public opinion" aspects which insists on instant results or a certain outcome or argues with the verdict after the fact.

        What I object to is what is going on in Missouri right now - where a city of 21K is so out of control that it requires local and state police - FBI and DOJ - and now National Guard to keep order. Authorities so freaking "sensitive" they are allowing mobs to destroy their own town. All in the name of "justice". Have your say - and then let the process work.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452030].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Steve -

          I agree and I think juries get it right more often than not. The turnoff for me is the "public opinion" aspects which insists on instant results or a certain outcome or argues with the verdict after the fact.

          What I object to is what is going on in Missouri right now - where a city of 21K is so out of control that it requires local and state police - FBI and DOJ - and now National Guard to keep order. Authorities so freaking "sensitive" they are allowing mobs to destroy their own town. All in the name of "justice". Have your say - and then let the process work.
          More often than not, they do. And people going off half-cocked helps no one.

          But I don't buy into the "the jury said so" concept, knowing how the justice system in this country works. There is a lot I disagree with.

          I think the initial police response to the protests was over the top, and that fueled the fire. But that's just an armchair opinion. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pouring gas on the flames isn't helping any. I think they should be arrested and charged with inciting a riot.

          That probably wouldn't help any, either
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9455180].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        Did you even read the article? If accurate, it is far from 'open and shut'.
        NOPE,I DIDN'T! I based it on the OP stating that he DID kill the people for that reason. In that case, many WOULD say open and shut. The reason why he did it is immaterial. The ONE difference is that if the killer is a white male, and the others aren't, ESPECIALLY if someone claims the killer ever said a harsh word against any protected class, they may label it a HATE CRIME!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452801].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WalkingCarpet
    Banned
    This guy should be given death penalty.
    Other guy ran down the kids by accident on a dark road at night.

    This fool killed him was pre meditated. Death penalty.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9451944].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet View Post

      This guy should be given death penalty.
      Other guy ran down the kids by accident on a dark road at night.

      This fool killed him was pre meditated. Death penalty.
      I would argue that being intoxicated and driving under the influence is not just some accident on a dark road. Maybe if he wasn't intoxicated he may have seen and avoided the accident all together. And since he was shot soon after, I wouldn't call it premeditation either.

      It's hard to really know what any of us would do in similar circumstances. I have a friend who was hit by a drunk driver. He and his wife had their infant daughter in the back seat, buckled in a car seat. She was killed. When he found out the other driver was drunk (which was very obvious) he went to retrieve his gun, which he is a licensed concealed weapon carrier. He told me he is typically never without his gun, but that night, he left it home.

      You could call situations like this a type of crime of passion. Your emotions would be all over the map - grief, anger, disbelief, etc. If this guy killed the driver (which apparently is NOT open and shut), it's understandable. But it's still against the law.

      No winners here.
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452048].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Don't even get me started!

        http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ation-why.html

        In my opinion, anyone who kills someone while DWI has no rights that need be respected. Not even the right to their lives.

        I also understand that there are some details in this situation that need to be fleshed out.

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452726].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Joe - The biggest problem is we who listen to the news and read the blogs only get the "high points". We don't have all the facts so our opinions are based more on our own beliefs than on an actual event as it happened.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452788].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Joe - The biggest problem is we who listen to the news and read the blogs only get the "high points". We don't have all the facts so our opinions are based more on our own beliefs than on an actual event as it happened.
          Yes ma'am, I agree.

          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

          I also understand that there are some details in this situation that need to be fleshed out.

          Joe Mobley
          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452987].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW for the record, when I said:

    Frankly, I have ALWAYS thought that if the original death is due to known incompetence or malice that such a killing was justified.

    Driving DUI, or blind, or with the windows covered, or having a severe problem with seizures, or with an unrestrained dog that will keep hopping up on your lap, etc.... is a "KNOWN INCOMPETENCE"! It is something you KNEW would likely hurt your ability to drive safely. Malice, of course, is the DESIRE to kill, in this case.

    If you hit a pothole, or your tire blows, but is in apparent good condition earlier, or you swerve to miss another and can't restore control, etc... it is an ENTIRELY different circumstance. You couldn't have known about THAT.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9452826].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    I have friends in UT whose 18 yr old son was killed by a guy texting and driving. The texter was given NO jail time...........

    They are fighting tooth and nail to get this guy jail time.........and to change laws that would make it a felony to hit and kill someone while texting. While that would seem a no-brainer, they are having a lot of difficulty in getting the laws changed there. Progress - but not success.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9453281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      I have friends in UT whose 18 yr old son was killed by a guy texting and driving. The texter was given NO jail time...........

      They are fighting tooth and nail to get this guy jail time.........and to change laws that would make it a felony to hit and kill someone while texting. While that would seem a no-brainer, they are having a lot of difficulty in getting the laws changed there. Progress - but not success.
      That's very sad. I really hope your friends are able to get justice for their son. So many senseless accidents and deaths caused by people who foolishly believe that 1) they can text and still drive safely and 2) responding to a text message is always an urgent matter.
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9453793].message }}

Trending Topics