Author Topic: Dad kills drunk driver who killed his kids. (Read 3185 times)

powderman · « **on:** February 17, 2013, 03:54:27 AM »

[/t][/c][/t]

http://gma.yahoo.com/dad-accused-mur...opstories.html

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.
Bond was set at $450,000, police said.[/t][/t][/t]

Barajas and his sons were pushing the family's disabled pickup truck toward their home late that night, as the boys' mother and two younger siblings sat inside, according to a police report released by the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department.
They were struck by Jose Banda, 20, the driver of a Chevy Malibu, instantly killing David Jr. and critically injuring Caleb, who later died at a hospital.
"Banda was determined to be intoxicated at the time of the crash," police said in their report.

When cops arrived on the scene, they noticed something else about Banda. He had been shot in the head. But they could not immediately find the murder weapon.
"Investigators recovered a projectile from inside of the vehicle that Jose Banda's was shot in. Investigators were unable to match that projectile to a weapon because no weapons were recovered at the scene," according the sheriff's department.

Witnesses at the scene watched Barajas walk to his home and allegedly retrieve the gun with which he shot Banda, according to a police report. When police searched the home, they found a pistol holster and ammunition, but no firearm.
"Investigators are currently awaiting results of gunshot residue tests which were collected at the scene," police said. On Friday, a grand jury found there was enough evidence that Barajas could be charged.

According to authorities, he does not yet have an attorney.
"It really hurt a lot of us," Jose Roman, a family friend of Barajas, told ABC affiliate KTRK-TV about the death of the boys and the indictment of their father.
The boys, both fans of the Houston Texans, were buried last month. Many of the mourners at their funeral wore Texans jerseys.

But the family of the slain driver believes justice must be done.
"It was an accident. He didn't purposely do that,' Janie Tellez told KTRK. "Whoever did it is getting away with murdering my nephew. He deserves justice."

[/td][/tr][/table]

magooch · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:00:22 AM »

This might be a case of justifiable homicide.

cjclemens · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:07:05 AM »

Maybe that drunk driver deserved to die, but he shoulda had his day in court. I probably would do the same thing, if I had been that dad, but I still think its wrong to take things into your own hands after the fact. I guess I'd like to see the prosecutor accept a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Now if it had been a mugger the dad had shot in self defense, that's a different story.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:14:24 AM »

Quote from: magooch on February 17, 2013, 04:00:22 AM

This might be a case of justifiable homicide.

could be. I guess we'd have to decide first, if revenge is considered a justification for murder.

is it?

Dee · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:28:36 AM »

Whether the drunk killed them with a car, or killed them with a hammer, the kids are dead, and the parents had to watch. Like most drunk drivers, the drunk lives, and the victim dies. Well, in this case, JUSTICE "WAS" DONE, in my opinion. The injustice was charging a father for murder. In Texas, anytime an auto accident results in a death, or near death, the driver gets blood drawn to determine blood alcohol levels, so drunk is not a question here.
I say "accident" and that word does not apply here. The driver did not "accidentally" get into a car and drive drunk. The driver "intentionally" got in a car and drove drunk. For once, the drunk driver actually paid for his foul deed, the same price his victim paid. For what HE DID, not for what they DIDN'T DO.
An ex-cousin by marriage that I mentioned on a thread pertaining to this same event, stays drunk forty years after killing two young men on a motorcycle, while he was driving drunk. He learned "nothing", and got only 10 years "probation". He blames the cops for arresting him DWI. I have seen him very little but occasionally talk to family members and they mention him, as he and I used to be runnin buddies thru school, and for a few years before this event. He still drives drunk and is lookin for more victims to hit. He has wasted THREE lives. Theirs, and his.

magooch · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:39:23 AM »

I hope the prosecution takes into account the unknown number of other lives the father might have saved by making sure the offender never drives again.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2013, 05:21:12 AM »

Quote from: Dee on February 17, 2013, 04:28:36 AM

In Texas, anytime an auto accident results in a death, or near death, the driver gets blood drawn to determine blood alcohol levels, so drunk is not a question here.

What if the drive appeared stone-sober? Was shooting him still justified, in our view, due to Dad's grief? Would you view be diff, if tox came back that the guy was sober? Or that there was some alcohol, but comfortably below legal limit?

what if the guy was simply inattentive, or had rotten night vision? Still want him shot in the head?

Sourdough · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2013, 05:49:27 AM »

Yellowtail: No what if's. This guy was drunk period. He deserved to be shot due to his stupidity. One less drunk on the road to kill others. I back the father all the way. Justifiable Homocide in my book.

BBF · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2013, 05:55:31 AM »

Poking out his eyeballs would have removed his driving privilege as well.

blind ear · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2013, 06:09:16 AM »

Wish I could sit on the jury for the Dads trial. ear

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 17, 2013, 06:17:30 AM »

Quote from: Sourdough on February 17, 2013, 05:49:27 AM

Yellowtail: No what if's. This guy was drunk period.

how do we know this? Bloodwork from THE CORPSE?

hey, I'm all in favor of dispensing justice, that I see fit. I doubt the rest of you would be happy with that, though - and by 'you', I mean ALL my fellow citizens. Especially the divorce lawyers and crooked prosecutors, who might be short for this world were I king.

dukkillr · « **Reply #11 on:** February 17, 2013, 10:30:57 AM »

Never, and mean never, ceases to scare me how some people claim to support Constitutional rights but in reality pick and choose the parts they think are really "God given" and the parts that are, you know, just ignorable...

Quote

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

Source anyone?

I realize most of this is just tough guy bluster anyway, but wow... If we can ignore the parts we don't like it seems hard to complain about others doing the same, right?

Mike in Virginia · « **Reply #12 on:** February 17, 2013, 11:07:05 AM »

I don't know how the dad could NOT have killed him?

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #13 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:06:05 PM »

Temporary insanity plea?

Oldshooter · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:29:55 PM »

OK, I understand the the "civil rights" question here but this did not occur in time lapse. The drunk hit and killed the Child and fatally wounded another. Instantly the father of the children allegedly shoots the perpetrator. Had the man came by and shot the kids would it be any different? I think not! The father did what any father would do given those circumstances, I think. No bluster here, I think it was a reaction to seeing someone kill his children. I really think I would have done the same and that scares me.

powderman · « **Reply #15 on:** February 17, 2013, 12:32:32 PM »

Quote from: magooch on February 17, 2013, 04:39:23 AM

I hope the prosecution takes into account the unknown number of other lives the father might have saved by making sure the offender never drives again.

MAGOOCH. Me too, a drunk driver here in KY hit a school bus years back, the bus exploded killing many, others burned horribly. I believe that he is now a free man. Temporary insanity should certainly apply here.
DEE Good [post Sir, as well as several others. POWDERMAN.

Dee · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2013, 01:35:05 PM »

Tough guy bluster. Hmmmm. Kansas court rooms are a world away from Texas family. Southern families for than matter. We defend our families down here. There are a lot of things said in court rooms that would not be tolerated man to man. Some don't understand that, and some do. I've seen a bunch of weenie lawyers run their mouth in court, but are real nice when the judge and court bailiff aren't there to protect them. Talk about "tough guy bluster".
David Barajas made that point loud and clear down here in Texas to everyone concerned. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's what the Constitution says. Doesn't say anything about gettin drunk and runnin over kids, that's where courtroom whores come in to try and make that alright too. Tryin to turn this "pick and choose" light on involvin the Constitution, and makin one's self appear more civilized, knowledgeable, and righteous, won't float a paper boat in a bathtub.
You might find one in Kansas, but you'll be damn hard pressed to get a jury down here to send Barajas to the pen for what he done. There ain't a father alive that loves their kids, that might not do the same thing under the same circumstances. Oh, they might convict him of "somethin", but my money is on him walkin, and rightly so.
What scares me, is collectively the American voter has ignorantly chosen lawyers to run the country. That's why it's in such a mess now. Twistin the Constitution is what they do, and we pay for it. It's easy to be "righteous" in a controlled environment, when it ain't YOUR BLOOD on the ground, but more about THE FEE.

One other thing duk. Just because we don't see it your way, doesn't make us wrong, or any less for the Constitution. This pickin and choosein as you accuse, is YOUR opinion, not ours. We don't see it YOUR way.

dukkillr · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2013, 03:28:18 PM »

LOL! So I say:

Quote from: dukkillr on February 17, 2013, 10:30:57 AM

I realize most of this is just tough guy bluster anyway, but wow...

And in response I get a bunch of tough guy bluster with a thesis of, "This isn't tough guy bluster"!

Still, this seems simple enough for me to understand...

Quote

... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

nw_hunter · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2013, 03:32:46 PM »

We are a nation of laws! We would never last long without them. Like Duk said! Do we just pick and choose which law....... Which part of the Constitution we choose to follow? I don't know what I would have done in the same situation. If I had a gun handy, I would probably have used it on the guy.I wouldn't have even thought about the consequences. If I was on a jury and had to choose guilty or not guilty on a first degree murder charge against the guy, I would say "Not" guilty.
IF I was a Texas LEO, would I arrest the guy for shooting the Drunk killer?
Am I a Texan first or Law man?

Dee · « **Reply #19 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:54:21 PM »

I believe they DID arrest the "drunk killer".

goodshot · « **Reply #20 on:** February 17, 2013, 04:58:50 PM »

Dismissed in the Interest of Justice?

williamlayton · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2013, 09:35:54 PM »

I am not saying what I would do. The thing that hurts him is he walked 300 yards to his house to get the gun.
That is a bad omen for temporary insanity.
It does not preclude this defense and I think he should be alright in court.
He did say that he did not remember anything.
Some of this is culture and folks should take into account culture when they get into a car drunk. It is a sad situation----buttt----I am glad the bastard is dead.
Blessings

alan in ga · « **Reply #22 on:** February 18, 2013, 02:22:16 AM »

Does this count for anything?
"Barajas and his sons were pushing the family's disabled pickup truck toward their home late that night,..."
so the truck was disabled late at night,....meaning the lights might not have been 'on'? They are in the DARK.
Drunk drivers need to be punished to the full extent, but I still wonder how ANYONE might not have SEEN a disabled vehicle late at night, a vehicle that was almost stopped or stopped [being pushed manually].

LONGTOM · « **Reply #23 on:** February 18, 2013, 04:56:31 AM »

There IS NO WHAT IFS, this was NOT DAYS, WEEKS or MONTHS LATER.
It was then, at that moment.
I do agree that walking home after the gun doesn't play well for his defense.
You really can't charge him with 1st degree murder because it was at the time.
1st degree requires premeditated, unless you call the short time it took to walk to his home and back enough time to cool off.
To me, that is not enough time.
He could always claim grief as the determining factor that caused him to do what he did, and rightly so.
No one would deny that much grief would cause temporary insanity.
What he did was wrong in the eyes of the law.
He may be convicted or not.
That remains to be seen.
If I were on the jury I would either acquit him on those grounds or convict him of the least crime that was allowed with sentense dropped, depending on his actions and the arguments in court at the time.
I am sure I would have done the same thing if I were in his place.
What happens after that really doesn't much matter, the boys are gone!
I would feel no remorse over my actions except to the fact that I am the one in jail, not for the reason I did it, but for the fact that I did it.

Interesting to hear the out come on this.

LONGTOM

Dee · « **Reply #24 on:** February 18, 2013, 05:24:11 AM »

LONGTOM, if I watched a drunk run over one of my GROWN kids, I don't think a walk down the road would cool me off, if it was a 40 mile walk. I think some here need to form their own group like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers has.
The could call themselves DRUNKS, Drunks UnderNeath Killers.
It is so gal-lant to be able to take the "moral road" when some else's kids are the ones run over.

powderman · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2013, 05:36:03 AM »

I hope somebody in Texas posts an update on this if it doesn't make natl news. POWDERMAN.

Dee · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2013, 05:50:16 AM »

Well in checking, Barajas was charged with murder, and his bond was set at 450,000.00. Already knew that. He turned himself in, and I am not sure if he made bond.

Banda, the drunk driver's blood alcohol at the time of the accident was 0.175 above the legal limit. He hit all three, as the father Barajas, was also hit, and injured, and they were less than 50 yards from their home in Alvin, Tx.
The pickup Banda hit, also contained the wife, an 8 year old, and a 4 month old.

williamlayton · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2013, 11:47:20 AM »

TM
You need to stay where you are----you don't fit in with Texas.
Too much taking and not enough doing.
Blessings

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2013, 12:04:28 PM »

Too bad the murder victim wasn't carrying at the time - he might have been able to protect hisself. Too late now.

I miss Travis County...

corbanzo · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2013, 12:44:07 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on February 18, 2013, 05:26:53 AM

Depending how the State handles the case...the shooter dad may be culpable in part for the accident; depends on the details of the accident. Just because some one is drunk driving doesn't mean they caused an accident, although we're usually led to think they do......It means they were operating a vehicle intoxicated; legally I don't know if that automatically means they caused an accident_ _have to ask an attorney.. Wondering how come the shooter dad wasn't hurt in the accident..
.
.
.....TM7
..

Every state and every court takes into account percent fault for any accident.

Pushing a non-operational vehicle down an open roadway is not only a bad idea, especially at night, it's also illegal to keep a disabled vehicle in a roadway.

Not only this... the father left his family at the scene of an accident to carry out an act of revenge. So not only is he possibly allowing the rest of his family more harm, possibly allowing the kid to get away, he is also putting his family in more distress with his current legal situation.

Now his wife and the rest of his family have lost two boys... and more than likely their father to jail.

If one of you came around a blind corner, and there was all of a sudden a truck stopped in your lane with three people in the roadway, it was dark and they had a non-operational vehicle with no lights - this could happen to you.

It could have been any of us.

Now the kid was drunk and obviously that is a contributing factor in many accidents... so I don't have any remorse for what happened to him in that respect... you get what is coming to you. But same for the father.