User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 2:58:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Good murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:02:59 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm very confused. Given drunk driving is a victimless crime, how could three people end up dead? This makes zero sense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:05:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Living in Houston, remember when it happened. The DA sure has some butthurt, that ugly cunt.
Good acquittal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:07:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Works for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:07:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:09:59 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.click2houston.com/image/view/-/17724358/medRes/1/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/ireptrz/-/David-Barajas-II-and-Caleb-Barajas-boys-killed-in-crash-jpg.jpg Barajas' sons, 11 and 12 years old, were pushing their family's car after it broke down when Banda's vehicle hit and killed them. Kid in green shirt looks just like Manny from modern family. And horrible, I can't imagine losing my boys like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:11:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Two words.
Reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:14:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm very confused. Given drunk driving is a victimless crime, how could three people end up dead? This makes zero sense. Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:14:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So let me get this strait - a grand jury sent this to trial with only circumstantial evidence. No witness, no gun, no evidence other than a holster that might have held a gun. Damn what a miscarriage of justice. Reminds me of the joke about charging a woman with prostitution because she was equipped to do it. --- Either someone else did this for other reasons - or a grieving father kept his wits together very well. Best bet would have been to have a third person do the shooting, but that leaves a loose end. It is the only to get the Dad off Scott free. Right now he could write a book about how he took care of the problem and no one could do shit to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:16:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
whats the whole story? Mexicans killing each other in a typical lawless fashion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:19:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm very confused. Given drunk driving is a victimless crime, how could three people end up dead? This makes zero sense. Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. You're getting trolled if that matters to you FLAL1A |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:21:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries! 
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:22:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm very confused. Given drunk driving is a victimless crime, how could three people end up dead? This makes zero sense. Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. And you were doing so good--until that point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:23:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you were doing so good--until that point.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm very confused. Given drunk driving is a victimless crime, how could three people end up dead? This makes zero sense. Sometimes when people shoot guns they injure or kill other people. The people who are injured or killed are called "victims" of the shooting. Other times, people shoot guns but do not injure or kill other people. Those are shootings which have no victims. Similarly, when people drive while under the influence of alcohol but do not injure anyone or damage other people's property they commit the offense of DUI, which has no victim. No victim is identified or described in the charging instrument for DUI because there is none. On the other hand, when a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and injures someone, the offense is DUI with Bodily Injury; if a person drives while under the influence of alcohol and kills someone, the offense is DUI Manslaughter. In a charging instrument for DUI with Bodily Injury or DUI Manslaughter, a victim is named or described. This is because there is a victim. It may help if you understand that to say that a crime is victimless means only that no person or property is injured or damaged by the act constituting the crime. It does not mean that the act is not or should not be a crime. And you were doing so good--until that point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:24:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is the only to get the Dad off Scott free. Right now he could write a book about how he took care of the problem and no one could do shit to him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So let me get this strait - a grand jury sent this to trial with only circumstantial evidence. No witness, no gun, no evidence other than a holster that might have held a gun. Damn what a miscarriage of justice. Reminds me of the joke about charging a woman with prostitution because she was equipped to do it. --- Either someone else did this for other reasons - or a grieving father kept his wits together very well. Best bet would have been to have a third person do the shooting, but that leaves a loose end. It is the only to get the Dad off Scott free. Right now he could write a book about how he took care of the problem and no one could do shit to him. Maybe, maybe not. Had the dead drunk been a black guy instead of a "white Hispanic" Eric Holder would be down there with "civil rights" violations and charges. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:25:48 PM EDT
[#16]
I’ll be the first to say, good shoot, some things in life are worth going to prison for. But legally, I guess you really need a murder weapon to convict? Or just a sympathetic jury that would have done the same?
I'm so confused because clearly he murdered him, but likewise, I would say innocent if I was on the jury. I'm just wondering how he ditched the pistol before police showed up... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:25:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. A few here will vociferously argue driving while drunk shouldn't be illegal. They believe it is only a crime if you hit someone and cause BI or PD. Radical fools they are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:26:26 PM EDT
[#18]
Texas wins again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:27:45 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’ll be the first to say, good shoot, some things in life are worth going to prison for. But legally, I guess you really need a murder weapon to convict? Or just a sympathetic jury that would have done the same? I'm so confused because clearly he murdered him, but likewise, I would say innocent if I was on the jury. I'm just wondering how he ditched the pistol before police showed up... If he ran home, perhaps a Justice Fairy showed up and did the shooting--then fled back to Fairyland. You can only imagine his surprise, mixed with the horror of losing his beloved sons. Hey, coulda happened! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:28:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few here will vociferously argue driving while drunk shouldn't be illegal. They believe it is only a crime if you hit someone and cause BI or PD. Radical fools they are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. A few here will vociferously argue driving while drunk shouldn't be illegal. They believe it is only a crime if you hit someone and cause BI or PD. Radical fools they are. I bet they are all doper fucks too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:29:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man's truck breaks down not too far from home. 2 sons are helping dad push the truck home when a drunk driver hits the truck, killing both boys. Dad SUPPOSEDLY runs home, retrieves a gun and goes back and shoots and kills drunk driver. No weapon was ever found. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
whats the whole story? Man's truck breaks down not too far from home. 2 sons are helping dad push the truck home when a drunk driver hits the truck, killing both boys. Dad SUPPOSEDLY runs home, retrieves a gun and goes back and shoots and kills drunk driver. No weapon was ever found. I cannot fathom the grief and sorrow that man had to endure in losing his two sons. Just can't grasp it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:29:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man's truck breaks down not too far from home. 2 sons are helping dad push the truck home when a drunk driver hits the truck, killing both boys. Dad SUPPOSEDLY runs home, retrieves a gun and goes back and shoots and kills drunk driver. No weapon was ever found. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
whats the whole story? Man's truck breaks down not too far from home. 2 sons are helping dad push the truck home when a drunk driver hits the truck, killing both boys. Dad SUPPOSEDLY runs home, retrieves a gun and goes back and shoots and kills drunk driver. No weapon was ever found. I cannot fathom the grief and sorrow that man had to endure in losing his two sons. Just can't grasp it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:31:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet they are all doper fucks too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. A few here will vociferously argue driving while drunk shouldn't be illegal. They believe it is only a crime if you hit someone and cause BI or PD. Radical fools they are. I bet they are all doper fucks too. And/or drunks. Without a doubt! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:32:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: BTW: that was in New Orleans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:33:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would say some passersby found out what happened and did the dad a solid and left. Dad ain't gunna tell. My thought as well. Either that, or an armed relative of the family was coincidentally paying them a visit that day, came across the scene, took matters into their own hands then drove away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:34:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW: that was in New Orleans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: BTW: that was in New Orleans. WTF did he get probation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:34:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW: that was in New Orleans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: BTW: that was in New Orleans. I don't recall, but I cheered when I watched it, then laughed uproariously when the cop asked the guy "WHY did you do it??" "Why" indeed. 
Back to serious though--I really hope the boy has grown up okay, especially as he has a helluva hero for a father. God bless them, and I hope they have a tranquil and peace-filled life. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:35:35 PM EDT
[#28]
I guess the "he needed killin'' defense is still valid in Texas.
Good shoot, whoever did it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:37:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the "he needed killin'' defense is still valid in Texas. Good shoot, whoever did it. Perhaps the upset prosecutor can hire O. J. Simpson to hunt for "the real killer."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:39:45 PM EDT
[#30]
I'm good with this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:45:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Good shoot and fuck that prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:50:27 PM EDT
[#32]
I ain't got a problem with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:04:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My thought as well. Either that, or an armed relative of the family was coincidentally paying them a visit that day, came across the scene, took matters into their own hands then drove away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would say some passersby found out what happened and did the dad a solid and left. Dad ain't gunna tell. My thought as well. Either that, or an armed relative of the family was coincidentally paying them a visit that day, came across the scene, took matters into their own hands then drove away. A grandparent could live them. He hears the accident or saw it and went and took care of business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:16:31 PM EDT
[#34]
And if the father had been standing over the stabby stabbied DD with a bloody knife in his teeth, would GD be good with this?
I would
Dads endanger their kids every day. This dad didn't chose wisely, but the DD chosen worsely. He got what he deserved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:37:49 PM EDT
[#35]
A father taking out the trash that killed his kids... sounds good to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:38:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW: that was in New Orleans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: BTW: that was in New Orleans. Baton Rouge, actually. Could someone fill in the details a bit? The news stories seem to discuss the recent grand jury hearing with little details on the timeline of the event and relavant facts. How soon was the officer on scene after the accident? The allegedly unreported gunfire after the officer was on scene happened in front of the officer or was heard off in the distance? How many times was the drunk shot? The dad just claimed he didn't see anyone shoot the guy or just didn't say a word to the cops? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:46:18 PM EDT
[#37]
good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:54:50 PM EDT
[#38]
lacked proof.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:01:09 PM EDT
[#39]
And some here say that the drunk driver wasn't doing anything wrong until he hit the two boys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:05:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should they change the saying to Drink, Drive, Get shot? Almost. Drink, Drive, Kill 2 boys, Get shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:05:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Well you get what you got.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:08:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised this ever got past the GJ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:09:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:40:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Based on the info here - good shoot....I don't think I would have been able to keep my cool under the same circumstances? I hope whoever did the shoot stays free - forever.
Some mistakes - you only get to make once. No problems anywhere in the story - other than the skanky DA.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:10:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pushing a dark truck on a road at night with no lights, flares, nothing. Now you can debate that the drunk is entirely at fault for the actual impact depending on if a normal person under normal circumstance would or would not have done the same thing. But, there are other situations where we say that the victim certainly set up the scenario. The white guy being warned not to go into the Waffle house. The girl who went back to confront the drunk. etc. A prudent person doesn't put boys into that position, imho. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised. Dad was still somewhat at fault for his kid's deaths. He'll have to live with that. How so? Pushing a dark truck on a road at night with no lights, flares, nothing. Now you can debate that the drunk is entirely at fault for the actual impact depending on if a normal person under normal circumstance would or would not have done the same thing. But, there are other situations where we say that the victim certainly set up the scenario. The white guy being warned not to go into the Waffle house. The girl who went back to confront the drunk. etc. A prudent person doesn't put boys into that position, imho. If ya see headlights you get off the road, except the drunk didnt have his on and ran into them instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 7:14:42 PM EDT
[#46]
I probably would have voted to acquit even if their were strong evidence that he did it, that being said it sounds like the prosecutor and police had jack shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 7:29:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some people need killing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 7:31:04 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to send the DA an email, let him know he is a raging cunt. Then stay out of his jurisdiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
DA is all Butt Hurt A visibily angry District Attorney Jeri Yenne said prosecutors "would never present a case against a person we did not believe was guilty."
"Three sons were lost that day. The Barajas children and the Banda son," Yenne said. http://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-finds-david-barajas-guilty-shooting-death-drunk/story?id=25149665 The DA for Brazoria County is a woman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:19:48 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baton Rouge, actually. Could someone fill in the details a bit? The news stories seem to discuss the recent grand jury hearing with little details on the timeline of the event and relavant facts. How soon was the officer on scene after the accident? The allegedly unreported gunfire after the officer was on scene happened in front of the officer or was heard off in the distance? How many times was the drunk shot? The dad just claimed he didn't see anyone shoot the guy or just didn't say a word to the cops? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Texas has a way of dealing with problems that some people will never understand. I understand it fully. I'm just amazed to see it carried out successfully. God bless Texas--and Texas juries!
::Cue the video of the guy at the phone bank who shot his son's kidnapper/molester in the head and got seven months probation:: BTW: that was in New Orleans. Baton Rouge, actually. Could someone fill in the details a bit? The news stories seem to discuss the recent grand jury hearing with little details on the timeline of the event and relavant facts. How soon was the officer on scene after the accident? The allegedly unreported gunfire after the officer was on scene happened in front of the officer or was heard off in the distance? How many times was the drunk shot? The dad just claimed he didn't see anyone shoot the guy or just didn't say a word to the cops? Is this the story? (happened back in '84) There's also this one in Lafayette |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2014 6:28:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised this ever got past the GJ. All the GJ probably heard was that subject A crashed into subject B's car. When the police arrived, subject A had a hole in his heard, and subject B had a guilty look on his face. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
