Texas Dad Accused of Murdering Drunk Driver Who Killed Kids

[Quantum Windbag]

I have to agree with this.

I understand the circumstances, and the judge should take them into consideration when sentencing the man, but he committed murder and should be found guilty of such.

I agree that he should have to go through the process of the justice system, and stand trial. It's a tragic situation, but you do not want to encourage people to take justice (or vengeance) into their own hands.

I do not know enough about the facts of the case to rule on guilt or innocence.

This is a good point, agreed.

If the evidence points to the fact that he murdered the man though, he must be punished. If not, we devolve into a society where people argue innocence based on the fact the other guy "had it coming."

If this is to be a nation of laws, we can't do that.

Why do you say he must be punished? Shouldn't our justice system be more focused on, I don't know, justice, instead of punishment? Maybe you should think about why you think vengeance is fine if it is state sponsored, but refuse to allow it on a personal level.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I can totally understand the motive and righteous anger of the father who shot the drunk driver?

He is going to (and ought to) stand trial for murder.

Here's something to at least consider...

...it is entirely possible that the drunk wasn't the CAUSE of the accident.

Now if THAT is the case, would you still think that father had the right to murder the drunk?

Did you see the picture of the car the drunk was driving? They were in a residential area, pushing a truck by hand, and were hit hard enough to total the car that hit them. What other possible cause could there be?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This man should be set free immediately. Heat of the moment.

Why should he be set free immediately? He murdered a man. There is a rule of law in this country for a reason.

There is? What's the reason?

 

[freedombecki]

While I can totally understand the motive and righteous anger of the father who shot the drunk driver?

He is going to (and ought to) stand trial for murder.

Here's something to at least consider...

...it is entirely possible that the drunk wasn't the CAUSE of the accident.

Now if THAT is the case, would you still think that father had the right to murder the drunk?

His BAL registered at 1.75. He was drunker than a skunk.

yep,

father has every right to murder a invader.

Huh? One of the links said his BAL was 1.75. Blood alcohol level has absolutely nothing to do with one's being an "invader," whatever that means.

 

[J.E.D]

So far, I've not see the toxicology report proving that the dead driver was legally drunk. Anyone got that?

So far, I have seen no reason to care about it.

A father shoots a man in the head, and his reasoning for doing it was that the man was allegedly drunk and struck and killed his sons -- and you have no reason to care if the guy was actually drunk?

 

[J.E.D]

This man should be set free immediately. Heat of the moment.

Why should he be set free immediately? He murdered a man. There is a rule of law in this country for a reason.

There is? What's the reason?

So that people don't go around taking justice into their own hands. So that people in a fit of rage don't kill people without having all of the facts. Is that hard to understand? Would you prefer that we live in a society where people shoot first and ask questions later?

 

[J.E.D]

While I can totally understand the motive and righteous anger of the father who shot the drunk driver?

He is going to (and ought to) stand trial for murder.

Here's something to at least consider...

...it is entirely possible that the drunk wasn't the CAUSE of the accident.

Now if THAT is the case, would you still think that father had the right to murder the drunk?

Did you see the picture of the car the drunk was driving? They were in a residential area, pushing a truck by hand, and were hit hard enough to total the car that hit them. What other possible cause could there be?

You weren't there. Maybe it was night, the truck had no lights on, and the driver of the car didn't see them until it was too late. Maybe the truck was pushed in front of his car.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This man should be set free immediately. Heat of the moment.

Texas Dad Accused of Murdering Drunk Driver Who Killed Kids - ABC News

A Texas father, who watched a drunk driver strike and kill his two young sons, has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting the driver in the head moments after the accident.

David Barajas, 31, was charged with murder on Monday, more than two months after his sons David Jr., 12, and Caleb, 11, were killed steps from their home on a rural road outside Houston on Dec. 7.

While it is deplorable that anyone would kill someone instead of letting the government fix things and yada, yada, yada, good for him.

I hope the jury lets him go.

....Like O.J., right???

​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So far, I've not see the toxicology report proving that the dead driver was legally drunk. Anyone got that?

So far, I have seen no reason to care about it.

A father shoots a man in the head, and his reasoning for doing it was that the man was allegedly drunk and struck and killed his sons -- and you have no reason to care if the guy was actually drunk?

His reasoning, if he had any, was that the guy just killed his children. Unless you want to argue that the guy who did the shooting was drunk I see no reason to care whether the dead guy was drunk or not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should he be set free immediately? He murdered a man. There is a rule of law in this country for a reason.

There is? What's the reason?

So that people don't go around taking justice into their own hands. So that people in a fit of rage don't kill people without having all of the facts. Is that hard to understand? Would you prefer that we live in a society where people shoot first and ask questions later?

Funny, I can't find that in the Constitution, can you tell me where it is? Is that just something you heard once that you think is profound?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I can totally understand the motive and righteous anger of the father who shot the drunk driver?

He is going to (and ought to) stand trial for murder.

Here's something to at least consider...

...it is entirely possible that the drunk wasn't the CAUSE of the accident.

Now if THAT is the case, would you still think that father had the right to murder the drunk?

Did you see the picture of the car the drunk was driving? They were in a residential area, pushing a truck by hand, and were hit hard enough to total the car that hit them. What other possible cause could there be?

You weren't there. Maybe it was night, the truck had no lights on, and the driver of the car didn't see them until it was too late. Maybe the truck was pushed in front of his car.

Even if all of that is true he had to be going over 45 mph in order to do that much damage to his car. In Texas, the maximum speed in a residential area is 30.

 

[J.E.D]

There is? What's the reason?

So that people don't go around taking justice into their own hands. So that people in a fit of rage don't kill people without having all of the facts. Is that hard to understand? Would you prefer that we live in a society where people shoot first and ask questions later?

Funny, I can't find that in the Constitution, can you tell me where it is? Is that just something you heard once that you think is profound?

Do you care to answer the question, or are going to stick with "I don't see that in the Constitution"?

 

[J.E.D]

Did you see the picture of the car the drunk was driving? They were in a residential area, pushing a truck by hand, and were hit hard enough to total the car that hit them. What other possible cause could there be?

You weren't there. Maybe it was night, the truck had no lights on, and the driver of the car didn't see them until it was too late. Maybe the truck was pushed in front of his car.

Even if all of that is true he had to be going over 45 mph in order to do that much damage to his car. In Texas, the maximum speed in a residential area is 30.

So now you're a crime scene investigator?

And all you had to do was look at a photo

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So that people don't go around taking justice into their own hands. So that people in a fit of rage don't kill people without having all of the facts. Is that hard to understand? Would you prefer that we live in a society where people shoot first and ask questions later?

Funny, I can't find that in the Constitution, can you tell me where it is? Is that just something you heard once that you think is profound?

Do you care to answer the question, or are going to stick with "I don't see that in the Constitution"?

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, yet you expect me to answer yours. Why am I not surprised?

Tell you what, I will tell you what rule of law means, that might help you actually explain why we have it here in this country.

The rule of law is the "supremacy of regular power as opposed to arbitrary power." The phrase can be traced back to the 17th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote "Law should govern". Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

If you think about that, and actually figure out why we have a rule of law, you will see it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You weren't there. Maybe it was night, the truck had no lights on, and the driver of the car didn't see them until it was too late. Maybe the truck was pushed in front of his car.

Even if all of that is true he had to be going over 45 mph in order to do that much damage to his car. In Texas, the maximum speed in a residential area is 30.

So now you're a crime scene investigator?

And all you had to do was look at a photo

Nope, just smart. Did you look at the photo?

 

[Darkwind]

I can understand the emotion and would probably have done the same thing.

However, this story isn't right somehow. If someone killed My children like that, I would feel no need to hide the gun as I would be justified in killing him.

The police could not find the gun? Tells Me that the father feels he did something wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm just glad I don't live in that county, I wouldn't want to be on that jury.

I'd walk into the Jury Room and announce "I'm voting "Not Guilty". Anyone disagree?"

That would be jury tampering; better to keep your mouth shut until deliberations and then express your concerns, empathy for the father, sadness of two parents seeing their kids killed, etc. Then convince the other jury members to vote Not Guilty. Jury Nullification is not a crime, jury tampering is a crime.