man that killed drunk driver not guilty

[dragon]

CNN) -- A father and his two young sons were pushing a truck that had run out of gas down a road in December 2012, when a drunk driver plowed into it, killing the boys. The drunk driver was then shot dead at the scene of the crash near Houston.

On Wednesday, a Texas jury handed down a verdict of not guilty to father David Barajas in the shooting, CNN affiliate KHOU reported.

After the hearing, prosecutor Jeri Yenne stepped in front of cameras to say that she still believed that Barajas killed Jose Banda. Otherwise, the state wouldn't have prosecuted, she said.

"We also know that the jury did not believe that beyond a reasonable doubt," she said. "We respect that."

During the trial Sam Cammack, Barajas' defense attorney, was able to cast some doubt on the charges. He told jurors that the blood of a third, unknown person was found in Banda's car.

He accused authorities of jumping to conclusions.

"Obviously, at least how the evidence developed, they made up their minds at the scene that night and they never considered any other potential leads, even after the DNA came in," KHOU reported Cammack as saying.

The victim was a gang member, the defense argued, and someone else shot him that night in his wrecked car.

The prosecution called an eyewitness who testified that Barajas had left the scene, returned minutes later then leaned into Banda's car. He said he heard a gunshot but didn't see a gun.

Barajas was relieved by the verdict.

"A lot of weight is lifted off my back. I'm still destroyed. I'm missing my sons," he said.

Son David was 12, and Caleb was 11 when they died in the crash. Barajas and his wife have two remaining children.

Barajas said he was praying not only for his family but for Bandas' as well.

"They lost a son, too," he said. "This was a loss for everybody."

link

[Mr Bean]

I think we have a case here of frontier justice. The jury sat down looked at the case and could no bring themselves to send a grieving father to jail. After all the standard is reasonable doubt. From what I've read elsewhere the State had nothing more than motivate and an eyewitness without the physical evidence of a gun or finger prints or testing David Barajas for gunpowder residue on his hands.

Taking from afar I'm betting the local cops either did not have that option, did not want to do it for some reason or thought the local DA would not prosecute. I remember hearing about a local case about a father who's young daughter had been kidnapped, raped and killed and had tracked down the man who had done it. He beat him to death with a baseball back and the local media covered it at the time as one of those "No jury would convict him so we are not going to bother prosecuting him".

[Lagmonster]

I admit having mixed feelings about the idea of on-the-spot revenge. On the one hand, killing murderers isn't justice. On the other hand, I understand that humans are kinda core-built towards viciously liberating the body parts of people who just killed their child.

[madd0ct0r]

Prison is for rehabilition or deterrence. Neither apply in this case. Justice was served by the trial alone.

[Spekio]

IF he did kill the guy, which is not clear, I don't think justice was served. It would not be on the spot revenge if he left, got himself a gun and came back.

I empathize with the guy and all, but revenge should not be tolerated. If he was overwhelmed by emotion and killed the guy right then, it'd be understandable.

However, this shows cold blood and at best he should receive a reduced sentence.

[Irbis]

Prison is for rehabilition or deterrence. Neither apply in this case.

How killing someone, especially with premeditation, doesn't warrant rehabilitation period, if for psychological counselling alone?

Another example why jury system is bad mechanism that should be reformed or discarded.

[madd0ct0r]

It depends what you read into 'minutes later'. I'd argue that in the context (below) we seem to be talking 2-3 minutes later at most. Still full of adrenaline, shaking, overwhelmed and likely not thinking straight. No different from an on the spot killing. Counselling I can get right behind, but you don't need to jail someone to make sure that happens.

http://kxan.com/2014/08/25/lawyer-no-ev ... ers-death/

Investigators testified Monday they found a gun holster and ammunition in the home of David Barajas, who is accused of going to his house, retrieving a gun and then shooting 20-year-old Jose Banda in December 2012 near Alvin minutes after Banda plowed into a vehicle that Barajas and his two sons had been pushing on a rural road.

Twelve-year-old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb were killed. Barajas’ truck had run out of gas about 100 yards from the family’s home.

While the murder weapon was never found, prosecutors have suggested that the holster and ammunition were evidence that Barajas owned a weapon. Barajas’ lawyer, Sam Cammack, has denied his client ever owned a gun.

[Spekio]

It does not matter if it took 20 minutes or 30 years. No one is questioning his motives.

He left the scene, got a weapon, came back and killed the driver. This is not a man mad with anger, this is a calculated course of action. More so if he had the forethought to prevent gunpowder residue and get rid of the crime weapon.

Personal revenge should not be excused in the modern society.

And I say this a Penal Minimalist.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, you kill two people I love in front of my eyes for something as frivolous as you wanted a couple of beers and couldn't be bothered to get a cab and my rage is going to last more than the few seconds you seem to think it should. I don't think its unreasonable for someone to argue altered state of mind for maybe a few days after such an event, and I think most juries would be fine with that if the circumstances are anything like the OP.

[Spekio]

Yeah, you kill two people I love in front of my eyes for something as frivolous as you wanted a couple of beers and couldn't be bothered to get a cab and my rage is going to last more than the few seconds you seem to think it should. I don't think its unreasonable for someone to argue altered state of mind for maybe a few days after such an event, and I think most juries would be fine with that if the circumstances are anything like the OP.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying he had no reason to feel angry nor that his anger should not be factored in an eventual sentence.

I'm stating that he was wrong in seeking personal revenge. It is not okay for anyone to seek justice by his/her's own hands. We have a criminal justice system just for that.

If he was calm enough to collect himself and get a gun he was calm enough to call the police.

[Steve]

Do we even know he did it? Given the remarks about blood from a third unknown party?

I mean, it looks very likely, but given the defense outright denied it instead of "he killed my sons and deserved it", maybe jumping the gun and saying "he did it" is off?

[Spekio]

I used "IF" in my first post. We can never know for sure.

[madd0ct0r]

Do we even know he did it? Given the remarks about blood from a third unknown party?

I mean, it looks very likely, but given the defense outright denied it instead of "he killed my sons and deserved it", maybe jumping the gun and saying "he did it" is off?

true. there should be a big IF at the start of each of my posts.

IF the drunk driver was being chased by another car, that might have been the primary cause of the crash. The chaser pulled up and shot the drunk while the father was in the house.

[Sute]

After the hearing, prosecutor Jeri Yenne stepped in front of cameras to say that she still believed that Barajas killed Jose Banda. Otherwise, the state wouldn't have prosecuted, she said.

Regardless of whether or not the father killed the driver, and regardless of whether or not he deserves to be punished if he did so, I'd like to just take a moment to bask in this stunning bit of logic. The state saw fit to prosecute him, so he must be guilty. I know she says she respects the jury's decision and all, but still...

[Mr Bean]

Regardless of whether or not the father killed the driver, and regardless of whether or not he deserves to be punished if he did so, I'd like to just take a moment to bask in this stunning bit of logic. The state saw fit to prosecute him, so he must be guilty. I know she says she respects the jury's decision and all, but still...

Phrased that way, if the state prosecutes you... then you must be guilty. After all you were prosecuted by the state meaning your guilty.

[madd0ct0r]

The state prosecutor - "we wouldn't have prosecuted him if we didn't think he was guilty" seems pretty reasonable. Should they be prosecuting people they think are innocent? Should they be NOT prosecuting people they think are guilty?

[Beowulf]

The state prosecutor - "we wouldn't have prosecuted him if we didn't think he was guilty" seems pretty reasonable. Should they be prosecuting people they think are innocent? Should they be NOT prosecuting people they think are guilty?

I'm going to have to agree with madd0ct0r. I'd certainly hope that the prosecutor thinks he's guilty of that crime.

[Sute]

The state prosecutor - "we wouldn't have prosecuted him if we didn't think he was guilty" seems pretty reasonable. Should they be prosecuting people they think are innocent? Should they be NOT prosecuting people they think are guilty?

Alright, phrased that way it doesn't sound so bad. It's just the ordering in how it was originally reported that sounded terrible. He was prosecuted, therefore we think he's guilty vs. we think he's guilty, so we're prosecuting.

[LadyTevar]

I would argue that after the shock of seeing his boys die, the father was not in his right mind. There is a stage of shock where you seem to be clear-headed, but instead have fixated on one thought. Perhaps for the man, his thought was "I'll Kill You you sunnabitch!" And in that fugue of shock he went to get a gun and shot the drunk driver.

What's annoying is we don't have any of the dad's testimony to review, we don't have anything more than the blurb linked. There may have been other evidence han the stray DNA to give the jury reason to acquit. Or, as sometimes happens, the jury believed the drunk just deserved to die.

[Havok]

Prison is for rehabilition or deterrence. Neither apply in this case.

How killing someone, especially with premeditation, doesn't warrant rehabilitation period, if for psychological counselling alone?

Another example why jury system is bad mechanism that should be reformed or discarded.

What the fuck do you mean he needs "rehabilitation"? From what? Drunk drivers killing his family members?

Shrink session...
Shrink: Are you going to kill anyone again unless they drunkenly kill both your sons?
Dude: Nope.
Shrink: You're cured.



I also think that it's pretty fucking silly, that with myriad of ways anger and rage can be expressed and manifested, that everyone is pissy because it wasn't expressed in this case like it would be in a movie. If the guy had a gun on him at the time, what would be the difference? Do you think his thoughts and rage would be different?

I also think anyone that has truly loved someone has already premeditated killing anyone that hurts or kills them whether it ever happens or not.

[Lord Relvenous]

This case reminds me of Gary Plouchet shooting his son's kidnapper.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PUE8fYxjq8[/video]

And I don't think I could have done any different if I was on either jury.

[Lord Relvenous]

Ah son of a bitch. Here we go.

[NettiWelho]

This is the same state as the 'affluenza' case.. I am guessing the driver was not white or rich?

Will this mean people killing drunk drivers in the future can point to this case as precedent in texas?

[Spekio]

Blah Blah blah strawman

Yes,why do we have Rule of Law if people can solve their own problems just killing each other.

[Tanasinn]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The man was accused of a crime, tried, judged by a jury of his peers, and found innocent. Sounds like rule of law to me.