Interesting case. I'm pretty sure this guy got away with murder.
Jury Acquits Texas Father Of Killing Drunken Driver Who Crashed Into His Kids(12 posts)
Posted on August 27, 2014 - 02:59 PM #
I'm sure he did also. Good for him. The jury got it right.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 03:30 PM #
It sounds like someone else shot and killed him. The jury got it right. No GSR, lots of shooting, no physical evidence including no weapon . . . not much of a case. Should have charged him with a lesser crime and plea bargained, but Texas prosecutors have that swagger and swung for the fences and struck out.
Just because someone might be morally justified in killing him is not evidence that he did.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 03:53 PM #
I'd nominate him for a hero badge if he did do it.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 03:56 PM #
I second that!Posted on August 27, 2014 - 05:37 PM #
I third it !!Posted on August 27, 2014 - 06:45 PM #
All 3 of you need to re-think your approval.
If this guy did indeed shoot and kill this guy after the accident, he's also guilty of murder. Otherwise you favor vigilantism, which is one step away from anarchy. We live in a civil society with law and order. Vigilantism is not acceptable no matter what.
I haven't spent much time following this case, but I'm willing to bet this guy got away with murder. The only problem is that evidence was lacking to directly link it. There's no question there's motive, and it makes no sense to me that someone else would shoot and kill him on the scene.
Just another reason why Texas sucks shit.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 07:02 PM #
I second Vitalogy. (Except about Texas).Posted on August 27, 2014 - 07:21 PM #
I will also agree with Vit on this one. If someone kills one of your loved ones, in this case, his children, it is obviously awful. However, legally, this father can be held responsible for murder unless he was protecting himself. The drunk probably would have gotten life in prison anyway, which IMO is worse than the death penalty. Since the father was the person charged, he cannot be tried for the same crime twice, so yes, in that sense he got away with murder. (although some holes in the testimony are apparent). The drunk driver didn't get away with murder, but it still goes against our criminal justice system as I see it.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 07:37 PM #
Vitalogy said it himself: "evidence was lacking to directly link it"
Based solely on the linked article, there is reasonable doubt.
Yes, there is motive and possibly opportunity, but "there were no witnesses who identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative."
In addition "prosecution witnesses told jurors during questioning by Cammack that more gunfire had taken place well after Banda was shot — pointing to the possibility that the actual shooter was still at large — and that a search of Barajas' home failed to find any evidence that directly or indirectly linked him to the crime scene."
So if you are on the jury, what are you going to do?
Again, reasonable doubt. No gun. No GSR. No condemning evidence. So you are going to send someone to jail just because he had motive? He showed regret. He was tried by a jury of his peers. The prosecution failed to make their case.
Not to mention the timeline constructed by the defense using 911 calls suggesting he could not have been at the crime scene, where two of the driver's relatives witnessed the crash and fled immediately.
If it was me on the jury, I would not find him guilty. If you would, explain what your vote is based on.Posted on August 27, 2014 - 08:38 PM #