Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Source: NBC

A Texas father was found not guilty Wednesday of gunning down the man who killed his young sons in a drunken-driving accident. It took the jury three hours to acquit David Barajas, who was charged in the shooting death of 20-year-old Jose Banda Jr. in December 2012. Police said an intoxicated Banda struck Barajas and his two children while they pushed the family’s disabled truck down a road, just 50 yards away from their home in Alvin, south of Houston. Barajas’ children — David, 12, and Caleb, 11 — were killed.

Amid the chaos, authorities charged, Barajas went home, retrieved a gun and went back to the wreckage to shoot Banda in the head. But investigators never recovered a gun and didn't have an eyewitness to the shooting. Barajas’ attorney, Sam Cammack, said his client’s only focus the night of the crash was trying to save his sons’ lives. Barajas would have faced up to life in prison if convicted.



Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-dad-david-barajas-acquitted-murdering-man-who-killed-sons-n190286?cid=sm_n_main_1_20140827_30576196

[IdaBriggs]

1. I don't even know what to say.

My gut says he was crazed when the whole thing went down.

An absolute horror story. Those poor children. That poor father. That poor drunk idiot.

An absolute tragedy.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. My brain tells me this is a bad thing and we have courts for a reason

My heart sides with the father.

[IdaBriggs]

4. Agreed. I find his actions...understandable.

Burying a child ... and then having to bury two... I can't picture him being SANE in those moments directly afterwards....I believe "temporary insanity" is actually totally understandable in this instance.

[IronGate]

5. The jury reached the correct verdict.

The prosecutors case was weak to begin with, no gun was found, no eyewitnesses, no GSR on the dad, there were others who had motive to kill this guy.
There was loads of reasonable doubt and the jury agreed with the defense that the state failed to prove it's case.

[roguevalley]

32. a mom did this in California when I believe a guy molested her son. she went to jail

I feel their sorrow but we can't have this. Its hunting even if understandable.

[IronGate]

35. There was real reasonable doubt that he did it.

The mom, other relatives had motive and opportunity to kill this guy.
What really clinched it for me was the lack of GSR anywhere on the dad.
I really think the jury reached the correct verdict.

[roguevalley]

55. I agree. I think I remember that part too.

[Adrahil]

67. Agree. The case was much weaker than it at first appears. NT

[yeoman6987]

93. She saved many future molested children

Yes she went to jail, but i hope the other inmates treat her well. Seriously, they most likely have children too and the knowledge that this creeper won't be going after their children especially while they are in jail is most likely a relief for them. Most molesters are serial.

[olddad56]

110. Ellie Nesler was the mother who killed the creep in court that sodomized her then 6 year old son..

she was convicted and sentenced to 10 years, won an appeal and was released after 3. She died of breast cancer at age 56.

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Why-Ellie-Nesler-Killed-Her-Sons-Molester-Video

[Warpy]

101. Well, without the gun or an eyewitness, they had no case.

Even if they'd had those things, it would have been difficult to get a conviction. Temporary insanity would have been the defense and it would have stuck.

[Adrahil]

123. The evidence was entirely circumstantial....

Frankly, even in the absence of the mitigating circumstances, it think the jury found correctly.

[SoapBox]

3. I'm torn...

Bur the father did make himself into the judge, jury and executioner.

[iamthebandfanman]

6. who needs rule of law

when you can just go buy a gun to settle your differences.


I don't care what kind of rage this guy was justified in having, but nobody made him God either. hes as much a murderer as the drunk driver in my book.

[IronGate]

8. See post #5.

The prosecution couldn't prove it was him that killed the guy, hence the not guilty verdict.
And can you honestly say that you wouldn't take the law into your own hands if you had just witnessed your 2 kids being run over and killed by a drunk driver?

I'd like to say I wouldn't, but I just don't know as I've never had to deal with the death of any of my children due to a criminal act.

[thesquanderer]

16. Heck, I might want to take the law into my own hands if someone ran over my dog.

Which might be why it's good that I don't own a gun.

Either that, or it's a good reason to get one.

[treestar]

68. I agree though it seems the acquittal here was really because

there isn't enough evidence he actually did it.

[LeftOfWest]

104. Thank you for this post.

Well said.

[ZombieHorde]

115. Rule of law is a silly myth.

If you desire additional harm upon the father, that is one thing, but no reason do it out of respect for fairy tales.

[MosheFeingold]

7. Maybe

As noted above, there was little to tie to the father except he had motive, so it's not at all clear that the father did this.

Coupled with the fact that the average Texan would have done just exactly what the father was alleged to have done -- I am surprised they even tried to prosecute him --- you'd get either reasonable doubt or people who go help the father dig a hole on your jury pool.

[cstanleytech]

9. So the average texan in your opinion would go home, get a gun and then commit first degree murder?

[MosheFeingold]

64. It would certainly cross their mind, yes.

[cstanleytech]

66. Well that would certainly explain the need for the current gun laws in texas then if they are that

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

trigger happy.

[MosheFeingold]

74. Don't disagree.

The problem is the Second Amendment has been interpreted as an individual right by the Supreme Court.

The only solution is repeal of the 2nd amendment.

[IronGate]

78. Ummm, NO.

Even our President agrees that the 2A is an individual right, as do most constitutional scholars.

And as far and repealing the 2A? Good luck getting enough states to ratify any repeal, it only takes 13 states to scuttle any constitutional change.

Even if you did manage to repeal the 2A, that still wouldn't ban the possession of firearms, it would just fall to the states to set their own firearms laws.

[MosheFeingold]

82. Repeal is the only solution

I agree the Constitutional scholars say that, as does, most importantly the Supreme Court.

In fact, if you follow the reasoning "keep AND bear" means people should be able to walk around with weapons, at least in the public sphere.

Hence why repeal is the only viable solution. Would that be hard? Maybe. Maybe not.

And it would not necessarily fall to the states, as a federal law banning most weapons could be put in place.

[IronGate]

84. And just what are the chances any repeal happening in any Congress?

Republican or Democrat controlled?
How fast do you think the Party that proposed that would last? Republican or Democrat?

[Cheviteau]

23. Yes. Yes he did.

Good on him.

[Skittles]

25. it sounds like they could not prove it

it's the logical conclusion but you must still be able to prove it with evidence

[LiberalElite]

30. I was on a jury in a criminal case - the

defendant was charged with attempted murder. We acquitted him because the State didn't prove its case. Maybe he did it maybe he didn't but for me, although the NYPD recovered the gun, the ADA didn't succeed in proving that it was ever in the defendant's hand to shoot at anyone.

[Skittles]

56. yup - lack of evidence can certainly mean reasonable doubt!

they have to prove it, for sure

[MrBig]

10. Correct Verdict

As far as I could tell, the only thing tying him to the murder was motive and opportunity. No murder weapon was found and no gun residue indicating he fired a gun.

Reasonable doubt existed and thus a not guilty verdict was appropriate in my opinion.

[Downwinder]

12. It could have been anyone with a weapon at the site.

[MrBig]

14. Exactly

Realistically speaking, Occams Razor would say he did it, but there's absolutely no way a guilty verdict was appropriate here based on the evidence presented.

[Downwinder]

17. I would not rule out HPD or DPS.

[S_B_Jackson]

63. Why would your think HPD would be involved in this?

it occurred in Angleton in Brazoria County.

[Downwinder]

65. Sorry about that, my error.

[840high]

29. +1

[treestar]

69. True. Yet people are justifying it on vigilante grounds

Which is pretty bad.

[MrBig]

73. Agreed n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

11. A crazed jury decision I can live with.

[MrBig]

15. I don't even think its a crazed jury decision

I think it's a jury that followed the law and did their job.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

13. I have no problem with that.

None at all.

[LisaL]

18. He had the motive and opportunity.

But other than that, there was reasonable doubt. Weapon was not recovered. No witnesses came forward to say they saw the shooting.

[savalez]

88. There were two teenage witnesses.

[IronGate]

90. Did they say they saw him doing the shooting?

I'm assuming not.

[LisaL]

100. Nobody said that they saw him doing the shooting.

[otohara]

19. Murder Is Legal

given the right circumstances.

[diabeticman]

20. ... Seriously what has happened to this country.

I mean I can see if the gun was inside the father's truck and he grabbed it and started firing. To me that was what I was taught Temporay insanity was... BUT he walked home he got the gun....


Not only that the cops once again didn't do their job and collected the evidence.


I really don't know what to think of this country anymore

[Niceguy1]

26. tjere was no residue

On his hands...... just because they disnt find any evidence doesn't mean that they didn't try...

[yeoman6987]

92. On this case, thank goodness for the

Country we live in. It is the right direction and decision.

[tclambert]

21. In Wild West days, you could justify a shooting by saying, "He killed my brother."

With that defense, Crooked Nose Jack McCall won acquittal in his first trial for killing Wild Bill Hickok, despite shooting Hickok in the back. That trial was held in Deadwood the day after the shooting. He was later convicted by a different court, under the ruling that Deadwood didn't have any legal standing to hold a trial, being an illegal mining camp in Indian Territory at the time.

Not sure if the jurors followed that type of reasoning.

Wasn't there a plot line in the TV show "Rescue Me" that paralleled this? I think Uncle Teddy shot the guy who ran over Tommy's son. Uncle Teddy went to prison, but was regarded as a hero.

[LloydS of New London]

22. I have no problem with this

It's like that guy in Oregon whose daughter was raped some years back. Got off scot-free of murdering the POS who did it to the little nine-year-old girl.

[christx30]

89. If it's the case I'm thinking about,

he found said POS raping his daughter and punched the guy once. He was protecting his daughter, and I would have absolutely done the same thing. But it was the one punch that did it. His response to the attack on his daughter was proportionate. It's not like he shot the guy or stabbed him. I'm sure he didn't want to kill him, but you never know what one punch will do.

[IronGate]

91. If I remember correctly,

he was really broken up about killing the guy also, said he didn't mean to, just wanted to get him off of his daughter.

[Loki]

24. Vigilante justice is alive and well in this country

and we could all become victims of someone's outrage however justified. I thought we were a country of "the rule of law".

[lunasun]

27. +1

[christx30]

31. Well, if one can refrain from

drunk driving, you should be ok. And if you treat people the way you would expect to be treated. No one gets revenge for an honest-to-goodness accident. But if you are reckless or you hurt someone, the law in some places won't protect you.
I don't drink. I don't do drugs. All I do is take the bus to work and home. I don't have anything to worry about. But if someone were to kill my children like this, I would have a hard time not doing what this guy is alleged to have done.
Drunk driving is stupid and selfish. Anyone that does it deserves anything that happens to him or her.

[npk]

34. Or perhaps this dumbass father shouldn't push his truck in the middle of the road...

especially when his two children are doing something very dangerous to begin with. This man got away with murder, and If I were him I would be looking over my shoulder because I am sure the man he murdered has family as well. Wouldn't be surprised if this asshole is gunned down soon as well. The fact is a totally sober driver could have hit this man and his kids since they were illegally pushing a vehicle down the middle of the road. I guess the father would have gunned that person down as well.

[IronGate]

36. Blaming the victim?

Nice, real nice.

[npk]

37. Uh the victims are the two kids and the man that was gunned down in the streets

Nice to know you support vigilante justice. How do you know that this man that was gunned down was drunk. Please show me where Mr. Banda was found guilty of DUI. Oh wait I'm sorry he wasn't. He couldn't have been found guilty because he was gunned down by the father. Regardless of whether this man was drunk, this father could not have known that at the time. What if Mr. Banda was having a medical issue and ran into the father and his kids. Do you know that diabetics who are about the go into insulin shock often smell like they are drunk, even when they are not.

What happens if you or someone in your family is driving on some small country road and come around a corner and see a man and his kids pushing a vehicle in the road. You try and stop but can't and strike the man and his kids. The man assumes you are drunk driving or even if he doesn't assume that he simply looses his mind and pulls out a gun and shoots and kills your family member. I am assuming you are going to be OK with that, After all the father is the victim, not the man with the bullet in his head, no no the father is the victim.

[LisaL]

39. How do you know that the father is the one responsible?

Jury obviously decided there is not enough evidence. Murder weapon was not found. Gun shot residue tests were negative. There were no witnesses that said they saw the shooting.

[IronGate]

40. He was gunned down by the father?

When was the father convicted of this? Oh wait, he was found not guilty.
I'm well aware of diabetic shock, I've treated it many, many times in my career, and you're wrong about the smell, someone in diabetic shock may act drunk, but the smell is a fruity breath odor, not alcohol odor.

The jury agreed with the defense that the state didn't prove it's case as there was no gun found, no eyewitnesses, no GSR on the dad, and others also had motive.

Yeah, you're blaming the victim, which includes the dad.

[Corey_Baker08]

43. So You Think This Man Was Shot Before The Accident?

I must not be understanding what your saying because all circumstancial evidence proves that the father, the only other person at the scene, was in fact the person who shot this young man after the accident. The accident occured within yards of the father of the deceased homes. Are you saying the dad is innocent because no gun shot residue was found, nor was a weapon found,..how do you know he didn't take the weapon to his home,get rid of it, was his hands, maybe use some bleach or super strenthg cleaner that would wash the GSR off of his hands, is that not possible?

The only other explanation would be the man was shot before the accident, which seems extremely unlikely and if he wasn't who else had motive, opportunity & the means to carry out this crime except the father? Some passerbyer?

[IronGate]

44. I'm saying the state couldn't prove it's case.

No gun was found, no eyewitnesses, no GSR anywhere on him or his clothes, the mom and other relatives also had motive and opportunity to kill this guy.
There was plenty of reasonable doubt in the jury's mind to find the dad not guilty and it took only 3 hours for them to reach this verdict.

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, the fact remains the state couldn't prove he did it and that's what counts in a criminal trial.

[npk]

47. The invisible man did it.

I saw the movie and all so I know it's possible. Where did you get the info he was tested for gun shot residue. If that is true it proves nothing of course because since apparently there were no witnesses the guy could have gone home and changed shirts and washed his hands.

[IronGate]

49. It's standard police procedure that a murder suspect be tested for GSR. nt.

[npk]

51. Oh ok.

Good thing it's standard procedure. Since standard procedure is always followed no worries.

[LeftOfWest]

105. k/r

yep.

[npk]

45. Yes he was found not guilty of comitting murder

You seem to think this is justice. There were two teenagers that witnessed the father confront Mr. Bandas after the accident and threaten him. Obviously the only person who had the motive to kill Mr. Banda's was the father, no one at the scene could have done this, since obviously if someone else walked up to Mr. Banda while at the scene and shot him then obviously the father would have seen this, but he didn't of course. How odd. Unless of course the father left the scene and went home to retrieve lets say a gun, oh wait that kinda cancels out his whole bullshit story that he was only trying to save his kids lives and never left the scene. But hey he is an innocent man, and apparently the hunt is still on for the uh guy who just showed up and shot Mr. Banda. I do hope this mysterious gunman is caught and soon, I mean wouldn't the father be concerned that a dangerous killer is apparently on the loose and so close to his home, wouldn't you know it.

[okasha]

97. Banda's blood alcohol level

would have been included in the Medical Examiner's report. Testing for drugs and alcohol is a routine part of an autopsy following a violent or accidental death.

[TorchTheWitch]

58. I agree with you

He put his kids in peril by having them behind the truck and pushing it in the middle of the street. He also put anyone else in peril that was coming up behind on that road, which is what happened. It could have been anyone that hit the kids, and I'm not seeing how he could have known the driver was drunk in the first place. From what I remember about this case the driver was out cold because of the accident, and nothing was known about him having been drunk until the autopsy findings. He would have shot whoever was driving that car drunk or not, and it was HIM that put his kids and anyone coming down the road behind them in peril.

And all because he didn't want to bother with getting a tow or walking back home and asking neighbors for help to push his truck while someone could be checking for traffic down the road and warning of a disabled vehicle in the road.

I'm horrified yet again that there are so many people here thinking they might do the same thing and shooting the person that hit his kids when the accident having happened at all was due to his own gross negligence. I'm not really seeing much difference in the amount of parental negligence between this guy and the parent who let his young son fire an Uzi he couldn't control and blew off his own head IF that parent became enraged at the instructor that allowed it and then walked 50 yards to a gun seller, bought a gun and walked back the 50 yards and shot the instructor. Yet with the story of the kid blowing off his own head because of his father's gross negligence in allowing such a young child to handle such a weapon everyone blames the father (as do I) yet that father didn't shoot anyone.

I'm not happy at all that this guy got off. Legally, maybe it's right, but I don't think the doubt is reasonable. What's unreasonable is to imagine that anyone else shot him. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence, and I think a lot of times circumstantial evidence can be even stronger than some physical evidence. Anymore I think juries expect that there be video of the incident, and all kinds of physical evidence like an CSI show when reality is nothing like that.

[IronGate]

59. What circumstantial evidence would that be?

There was no gun found, there were no eyewitnesses, there was no GSR found on the dad, there were others that had motive and opportunity to shoot this guy.

The state put on a weak case and the jury agreed with the defense that the state failed to prove it's case.
Did he do it? Maybe, maybe not, the jury seemed to think that the state didn't prove it and did what they're supposed to do, acquit him due to lack of evidence.

[LTX]

62. The irony in this post is palpable.

You can't control your knee-jerk rage on an internet message board, and yet you lambaste a father who acted out of rage, and in the heat of the moment, when he saw his two children killed in front of him by a drunk.

[Sunlei]

72. "illegally pushing a vehicle"?? what? It is up to drivers to watch where they drive!

[treestar]

70. The question of whether it is true or not should be decided by the courts

If I accuse you of stealing, should that be alone enough to make you guilty? I mean, you should just refrain from stealing and you'll never be accused, correct?

We have a court system because it is not black and white in every situation.

If someone steals from you, are you justified in punishing them yourself for it? Being judge and jury and punisher, right?

[cstanleytech]

38. In general as soon as some people hear it involves harm to a child they turn their brains off. nt

[Recursion]

60. There's no evidence he killed him

There's no murder weapon, no eyewitness, and no forensic evidence that he fired a gun.

You would convict based just on the fact that he had motive and opportunity?

[ZombieHorde]

116. No.

We are not a rule-of-law country because there is no such thing as rule of law. I don't understand how any adult who pays even a little attention to the news can think rule of law is a real thing.

[Adrahil]

124. That state's case was weak. NT

[gwheezie]

28. they based the verdict on the evidence

It sounded hinky when I was reading about this case.

[FLPanhandle]

33. As a father, I say good.

The real travesty would have been convicting him.

[Corey_Baker08]

41. I Don't Agree With This Decision, I Mean What If The Driver Was Not Drunk?

First after an accident involving two fatalities IDK how the father knew automatically that the driver was drunk, so this could very well have been a tragic accident which would have been the assumption of anyone on the scene until Police arrived and confirmed he was in fact driving drunk. So in that event that would mean, and means that this man, the father of the deceased had full intention to extract justice by executing this man whether he was sober and was just involved in a very tragic accident, theres no way that the father knew the man was drunk right after the accident,right before executing him, so it seems this guy could have been sober or drunk, it didnt matter the father decided he didn't give a shit and he was going to kill this man....

This guy should have went to prison...

[IronGate]

42. How many times does it have to be said?

There was reasonable doubt that the dad killed this guy, the gun was never found, no eyewitnesses, no GSR anywhere on the dad or his clothing, and other relatives had motive and opportunity to kill this guy.
The jury reached the correct verdict in agreeing with the defense that the state failed to prove it's case.

[Corey_Baker08]

46. Was Anyother Individuals With The Father & Sons During The Accident Then?

IDK it seems very unlikely that in the time it took police and fire rescue to arrive on the scene of the accident the father had the time to alert alot of people about the accident and one of these random people came to the accident scene shot the guy and left in the time it took police and medics to arrive.

So In any other scenario the father still knows who shot the guy because he was the only one who notified anyone of the accident except 911 dispatch. So perhaps the killer was at the fathers house, the father would have to know from my research his entire extended family did not live in the neighbourhood of the accident, just the immediate family members at the one residence and anyone who may have been visiting, in which you cant tell me the father didn't know anyone else being at his house or that he notified in the minutes after the accident....where not talking about hours or half hours, we are talking about minutes, the amount of time it took for the first responders to arrive at the scene....

[Corey_Baker08]

48. He May Not Be Found Guilty Of Murder, But Complicity To Commit Murder Is The Very Least...

In that respect I guess I see your point that the state was so incompentant they couldnt prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt only because of the elimination of physical evidence, as far as eyewithnesses go, I know if I pulled up on an accident scene without my shield and gun, I would keep going to once I saw a guy with a gun that said get the f*ck out of here, i got ur plate number u say shit ill kill you too, I would have kept going in that instance too, its not there was no eyewitness's, its just there was none willing to testify or report this bullshit

Are you a FF or Paramedic by any chance?

[IronGate]

50. FF/Paramedic with 20+ years in. nt.

[Corey_Baker08]

52. Thank-You For Your Service, I Am 25 & Finishing A Criminal Justice Degree!

[IronGate]

53. Best wishes for your career and may it be a long and rewarding career.

[Corey_Baker08]

54. Thank-You So Much, This Is A Great Example of Disagreeing Without All The Hate & Disrespect!

take care and thanks for the civil debate!!!!

[IronGate]

57. I agree and I thank you back for the civil debate. nt.

[blackcrowflies]

122. corey, you seriously think

people who are drunk don't smell to high heaven of alcohol, etc.?

[Malraiders]

61. Barajas put his sons' lives at risk by having them at the rear of the truck and

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Pushing it on an unlit rural road that we all must agree is traversed by speeders, unlicensed drivers and those who drive after drinking to excess.

I feel Barajas must also share part of the responsibility for the deaths of his sons.

[Guaguacoa]

75. So.....the person doing nothing illegal must share blame with the person that was?

That's ridiculous. It smacks of partially blaming a rape victim for what she was wearing. The person breaking the law is responsible in both cases.

[Malraiders]

94. Ever heard of child endangerment laws? I think it fits Barajas' behavior that night. n/t

[IronGate]

95. So, more blaming the victims?

[Malraiders]

96. I am sure that I would blame myself if I were Barajas. n/t

[Guaguacoa]

98. How about pointing out which laws they broke?

Show me where pushing a truck is child endangerment.

[Malraiders]

108. "placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a potentially harmful situation" is child

endangerment.

Telling his pre-teen children to push the truck on a road at night would fit the definition IMHO.

Also IMHO it is the parents job to see that children are not placed in dangerous situations.

You may disagree as you like with any of this.

Can you expand on why you think the children were not placed in a potentially dangerous situation?

[Guaguacoa]

109. In that case children riding in a car would be

putting them in a dangerous position as probably more are killed that way. Cars can break down, people push them including kids and I have NEVER heard of anyone being charged for child endangerment for doing so. Try pressing charges against someone for their kids pushing the car, I guarantee it would get dropped.

If the law was that broad then riding in a car, walking along the road and many things would be illegal for kids. Do you really think it would have happened had the other driver not been drunk? Probably not, you are blaming the wrong person.

[Malraiders]

111. The law requires that Barajas' disabled vehicle be moved to a safe location asap by use of

a licensed tow truck. Barajas was in violation of the law by telling his pre-teen children to do the work that the State of Texas requires to be done by a tow truck.

[Guaguacoa]

118. Link? I can't seem to find it.

I've also seen cops push cars out of the middle of the road in Texas. I'd have to see any law that says you cannot push a car out of traffic. They were pushing the vehicle off the road and some idiot with twice the legal alcohol in his veins killed them. Only a nut case or a career drunk driver would blame the father for what happened. I'm in my 60's and cannot count the times I have seen families, including kids, push a broken down car out of the road. There is seriously something wrong with you.

Then you MUST believe if parents send their kids on a school bus and a drunk driver hits them then it's their fault because they put them in that position. If your responsible when hit by a drunk driver, while not breaking the law, then its in all circumstanses.....not just the ones YOU choose. It's insane, neither is illegal and both is the fault of the drunk driver.

[Malraiders]

119. So you believe if you see a thing, it is safe and legal? The Barajas incident prove you wrong. n/t

[Guaguacoa]

120. Your thought process amazes me. Blame the victim for doing nothing illegal.

I'm putting you on block, bye.

[Sunlei]

71. He said he was focused on his sons, didn't do it and the jury agreed. Someone else in the "chaos"

[99th_Monkey]

76. So a victim's dad can now legally be the Judge, Jury & Executioner? Really?

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Then why can't Michael Brown's dad go gun down Officer Wilson?

Puzzle me that one.

I detest this as a precedent, regardless of how ever much I may sympathize with the victim's dad.

[FLPanhandle]

77. What precedent?

He was arrested and tried in a court of law and found not guilty. Not because of sympathy but because of lack of evidence.

What part of that do you disagree with?

[99th_Monkey]

80. You do not know why the Jury voted the way it did, and neither do I

No one can tell for sure why someone votes to acquit or not.

I simply disagree with the Jury. Especially since this is Texas, where
vigilantism is rampant, and I think that mentality contributed
significantly to the acquittal.

[FLPanhandle]

83. Sounds like you are now the Judge and jury.

You don't even sit through the trial and hear evidence (or lack there of). Yet, you think he is guilty and suspect the mentality of the jury.

You might want to look up the word Hypocrite.

[99th_Monkey]

85. I simply have an opinion. and stated it.

You are the one seeming to believe your judgement is above question & infallible .. along with a Texas jury.

Then you pile on with name-calling at me? ... like if I have an opinion that's different than yours, you must resort to name-calling?

Dude? Really?

On edit: for the record I do generally support "the courts" and the process we have for deciding guilt or innocence, but reserve the right to question some "due process" decisions (see George Zimmerman's jury trial).

[IronGate]

79. The dad wasn't Judge, Jury & Executioner,

a jury of his peers said so.
Also, there was a lack of evidence that he did shoot the guy, that's why the jury acquitted him, rightly so.

[99th_Monkey]

81. Please see

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=883374

[IronGate]

86. You called him Judge, Jury, and Executioner,

when there wasn't proof that he actually shot the guy.
Now, logic would dictate that he did, but unless he comes forward and admits it, and he could, double jeapordy and all, we'll probably never know.

And, I'll ask you this, if this happened to you, can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same thing?
I'd like to say I wouldn't, but I just don't know as I've never had to face the death of any of my children due to a criminal act.

[99th_Monkey]

87. perhaps I would do the same thing

but that still doesn't make it right.

By this logic, Michael Brown's dad would be justified to go gun down Officer Wilson. <--is this what you are saying?

Secondly, who else would go shoot the driver of the car that just killed the dad's son? Who else had a motive?

[LeftOfWest]

106. i wouldn't.

Ever.

ugh....

[IronGate]

107. It's easy to say that,

but until it actually happens, you really don't know how you would react.

[Reter]

99. Where were the cops and ambulance?

How did he have time to go home, get a gun, and come back to the scene after the accident?

[Calista241]

102. It was 50 yards from his house.

It takes what, less than 1 minute to cover that distance? Maybe 2 minutes? Even in a big city, cops an EMS don't respond that fast.

Even if the dude did it, he did it standing next to the bodies of his dead, crushed children. Fuck this DUI driver, I'm glad he bought it.

[NickB79]

103. I'm surprised he'd take the time to go get a gun

In all honesty, if I were in the father's shoes in this situation, I'd still be beating the driver's dead corpse with my broken fists when the cops arrived.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

112. I have wondered

I have wondered if it was his wife who killed the drunk. If she was at home when it happened, she, too, could have done it, but the investigators zeroed in on dad.

Too late to prosecute her, and who would convict, anyway? "But, you said the father did it!"

[Algernon Moncrieff]

113. Interesting theory -- and you're right -- who'd convict? (nt)

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

114. Well, it's believed to have been his gun

The gun wasn't in the holster in the house.

However, no one saw him do it, and there was no residue left on his hands or anywhere on his person.

So, imo, there was no way anyone could vote "beyond a reasonable doubt," therefore, the verdict was correct.

[ZombieHorde]

117. Very sad all around, in my opinion. nt

[blackcrowflies]

121. three hours?

How about less than one second. That's what it would have taken me if I'd been on the jury.