Man Kills Drunk Driver Who Killed His Kids - Your Take

Cad_sl said:

Each states laws are different, and the differences are codified by statute. In Texas, you're right. Any intent to kill and its murder. Under the model penal code (which isn't the law in any state, exactly, but parts of it are adopted by many states) we have:

Under the Model Penal Code, manslaughter includes:

.Reckless homicide
.Homicide that would be murder, but "is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse."

So really, it depends heavily on the state we're discussing.

Click to expand...

That's certainly fair. I'm going by broad definitions, but I'll admit it really doesn't matter because the DA can charge whatever and it only matters what he'll get convicted of. But really the important thing is the devil is in the details and we have almost none of those...

I could easily acquit or convict the guy depending on details. I'm just surprised how easily people go 'not guilty' BECAUSE THE CHILDREN!

This is kind of telling:

Witnesses will testify that they saw Barajas leave the scene and then come back and approach Banda's vehicle, going up against the car, appearing to be hiding something, Hrach said.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the dude walked back to his house, loaded a revolver, came back and executed the guy a few minutes later. That's fucked up and definitely not 'heat of the moment' if that's the case.

Palum_sl said:

That's certainly fair. I'm going by broad definitions, but I'll admit it really doesn't matter because the DA can charge whatever and it only matters what he'll get convicted of. But really the important thing is the devil is in the details and we have almost none of those...

I could easily acquit or convict the guy depending on details. I'm just surprised how easily people go 'not guilty' BECAUSE THE CHILDREN!

Click to expand...

I'd feel the same way if it had been his wife. It is more a matter that a guy chose to drive drunk and ended up killing people. Now from my perspective there are two outcomes. Either he is a decent human being and therefore can't live with what he has done, so he offs himself, or he isn't, in which case he may end up doing the same thing again. In the scenario where he is a decent person, he is dead anyway, and in the second scenario I know he'll never hurt anyone again.

The Master_sl said:

I'd feel the same way if it had been his wife. It is more a matter that a guy chose to drive drunk and ended up killing people. Now from my perspective there are two outcomes. Either he is a decent human being and therefore can't live with what he has done, so he offs himself, or he isn't, in which case he may end up doing the same thing again. In the scenario where he is a decent person, he is dead anyway, and in the second scenario I know he'll never hurt anyone again.

Click to expand...

So what if the guy was just under the legal limit and legitimately didn't see the pickup? If he wasn't technically driving while intoxicated and wasn't actually impaired but it was a terrible accident? I mean, I'm going to guess they couldn't get a tox report on a dead guy or didn't request it right? There's plenty of mitigating circumstances that muddy this case up. Chief among them to me is the walking back to a house and grabbing a revolver thing.

based soley on the evidence i would convict or not, its not up to me to forgive this guy for his crimes. i can see both sides, some drunk kills my kids that fucker is going down. but did he know he was drunk? if dude kills my kids because of an accident that happened because my car pooped out at night on some back country road and dude couldnt stop in time, shit im more likely to off myself than someone else. as it stands, if the dead guy was drunk and the dad knew it and knew the accident would only have happened due to a drunks bad driving instead of my dumb ass not filling up the fucking gas tank when i goddamn know im running low and here i am taking a trip. even old cars have low fuel warning gauges. if all that then yeah i cant blame the dad for shooting him, i just dont think he should walk scott free. serve your time like a man. own your actions.

Palum_sl said:

So what if the guy was just under the legal limit and legitimately didn't see the pickup? If he wasn't technically driving while intoxicated and wasn't actually impaired but it was a terrible accident? I mean, I'm going to guess they couldn't get a tox report on a dead guy or didn't request it right? There's plenty of mitigating circumstances that muddy this case up. Chief among them to me is the walking back to a house and grabbing a revolver thing.

Click to expand...

So he was sober and chose to speed? Not sure how that is supposed to be better.

Tox reports are standard parts of autopsies and autopsies are a standard part of dying by gunshot. Yes, they can tell if he had alcohol in his system and in what amount. Forensic science is a wonderful thing. He was drunk.

The Master_sl said:

So he was sober and chose to speed? Not sure how that is supposed to be better.

Tox reports are standard parts of autopsies and autopsies are a standard part of dying by gunshot. Yes, they can tell if he had alcohol in his system and in what amount. Forensic science is a wonderful thing. He was drunk.

Click to expand...

Which is fine but I don't see any actual evidence of that fact in the article? Plus I don't see where he was speeding, just that he plowed into the disabled truck. Maybe I missed it though.

Palum_sl said:

Which is fine but I don't see any actual evidence of that fact in the article? Plus I don't see where he was speeding, just that he plowed into the disabled truck. Maybe I missed it though.

Click to expand...

I looked into it. He had twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system and pushed the truck 228 feet after impact. Which means he was speeding, at the speed limit his car would not have pushed the truck that far. There were also no skid marks, meaning he didn't even brake.

228 feet sounds like total bullshit

Well, if it was in neutral then that doesn't really tell us how fast the dude was going. This whole story is weird.

The Master_sl said:

I looked into it. He had twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system and pushed the truck 228 feet after impact. Which means he was speeding, at the speed limit his car would not have pushed the truck that far. There were also no skid marks, meaning he didn't even brake.

Click to expand...

Ah that changes things a bit. Still, I would struggle with the fact that I empathize but on the other hand laws exist for a reason. It's not like he beat the shit out of him and he ended up dying, he straight up executed the man. I'm not sure what the right call would be, as a juror I'd imagine I could easily find him not guilty. From the outside it's a bit easier to think about it objectively It's a difficult case to be sure. If I had to sum it up I 'd say I would vote to acquit myself but I hope they find him guilty with a severely reduced or suspended sentence. Honestly, I'd havelessof a problem if the driver survived, got off with a dumb ass fine and a suspended license or something stupid and the guy went after him. That's more just in my eyes.

I really don't understand the slippery slope argument. Do people really believe letting this guy off would cause havoc on the streets as everyone goes on killing sprees that nobody will ever be convicted of? Can't we just handle these on a case by case basis, like our justice system always has? Completely different hypothetical scenarios shouldn't take precedence over actual reality

Big Phoenix_sl said:

Semi related question;

Why dont we execute people by placing them in a chamber filled with nitrogen or helium or any other inert gas? Why do we go to the trouble to make up some weird complicated concoction to kill people?

Click to expand...

We should strap them to rockets and shoot them at the moon

supertouch_sl said:

228 feet sounds like total bullshit

Click to expand...

You're welcome to go look at the accident report, it is part of the public record. Or read one of the summaries of it that has been posted online. As for not telling you how fast it was going, that is a fairly basic physics problem. If you Google "Crash Reproduction Manual" you can even find one of the standard texts attorneys and law enforcement reference when they need equations to work this exact sort of thing out, it is a standard practice.

The Master_sl said:

You're welcome to go look at the accident report, it is part of the public record. Or read one of the summaries of it that has been posted online. As for not telling you how fast it was going, that is a fairly basic physics problem. If you Google "Crash Reproduction Manual" you can even find one of the standard texts attorneys and law enforcement reference when they need equations to work this exact sort of thing out, it is a standard practice.

Click to expand...

Where is this accident report? The only place that mentions such a thing is "standforjusticeblog."

I'd have a hard time convicting him given what is known.

Kedwyn_sl said:

I'd have a hard time convicting him given what is known.

Click to expand...

From a purely legal standpoint, why would you have a hard time convicting him?

Guilty. Kill him. Adults are responsible for their actions.

that article sucks
so the father is saying it was not him? that someone else showed up and shot the guy? a liar and a murderer. Nice

Eomer_sl said:

Shitty, terrible situation and in that position I might do the same. But I don't think I can condone it.

Click to expand...

Its a revenge killing pure and simple. I can understand it, but not condone it.

Edit: As far as the methods of execution, "cruel and unusual" is applied as an argument against the death penalty, and probably rightly so, so the methods try to have the appearance of the most benign ways to kill a person.

For my part I think that the french perfected it with the guillotine. The only thing I might do is use a modern alloy for the blade which can be heated enough to immediately cauterize the wound while remaining sharp enough to off with their heads in one stroke.

Gassing someone with a pure inert gas would be horrendous and it would take him ten minutes to die.