Father charged with "headshot" killing of drunk driver that killed his 2 sons

[highland145]

with complete premeditation

 

[Ancalagon44]

For making his children push the car, the worst he should have got was a fine or maybe a warning. Not smart, I agree, but not a death sentence. Its not like he told them to dress in black clothes and run across an interstate.

Bandas however, decided to get drunk and then drive drunk. He would be responsible for his actions were he alive.

If I got drunk and started firing my gun everywhere, resulting in me accidentally hitting and killing two kids, I'd go away for a long time. But kill two kids while driving drunk? No somehow he deserves our pity.

He does not. He got what he deserved and he will never hurt anyone again.

 

[Rinaun]

You would make the worst juror. A simpleton unable to think rationally because he is overwhelmed by emotion. Like the murderous father in this case, or the looting, vandalizing thugs in other news, this type of savage, irrational behavior has no place in society.

So some dude is drunk, kills your two sons and wanting to kill him is being "overwhelmed with emotion"? I can see where you are coming from, but understand that most sane individuals would become insane after seeing their two children killed by someone who wasn't considerate enough to call a taxi home. Avoiding a 20$ charge cost THREE men their lives, with one having to live with survivors guilt. You don't think that will make the father die at a younger age?

Barajas placed his children in imminent danger by forcing them to push a vehicle down a dark country road. No flares, reflectors, or hi visibility clothing were utilized.

I agree in a sense, but that's almost as bad as blaming a rape victim because "he/she dressed that way and deserved it". I look at the worse of two evils and I see the true victim here is the innocent father who was just trying to make it home. For the record, there isn't any laws about pushing your car home, but there are laws about drinking and driving. I mean fuck bro, there are even sad soppy commercials about it. They tell you not to drink and drive before you can even drive. I also find it almost impossible at .175 that this guy hit them due to it being "too dark". That is TWICE the legal limit; you'd be swerving like crazy regardless of lighting conditions.

Then, with complete premeditation,

I see what you did there. You'd make a great attorney. Premeditation when it's clearly blinding rage from seeing your children pass away because some asshole wanted to get trashed at a bar.

Barajas murders a person who unintentionally

LOL. Damn man you'd make a GREAT attorney. Can I have your number? Don't even think about real life, just go into scientific-levels of math. "The driver was drunk so obviously it wasn't like he planned to hurt anyone, lets just take his license away because he got unlucky this time."

crashes into the children. Barajas subsequently disposes of the murder weapon and other evidence. It was Barajas poor decisions that directly led to the death of three people. He is a monster and deserves nothing less than the death penalty.

I don't see any articles proving he had the weapon, and eye-witness accounts show that nobody knows who shot him. It's PRESUMED Barajas did it because hes the only one with proper intent, but they found ZERO gunshot residue on his hand. If were playing the presumption game, can I presume the driver intended on hitting the car? 1 for 1 right? We can then call it self-defense; who knows if the drunk driver was going to get out and finish the dad off like the other kids!1!!1! If were ARENT playing that game, please stop "presuming" he had a gun. That's why this is going to court.


EDIT: LOL I AGREE WITH THIS

 

[master_shake_]

You would make the worst juror. A simpleton unable to think rationally because he is overwhelmed by emotion. Like the murderous father in this case, or the looting, vandalizing thugs in other news, this type of savage, irrational behavior has no place in society.

Barajas placed his children in imminent danger by forcing them to push a vehicle down a dark country road. No flares, reflectors, or hi visibility clothing were utilized. Then, with complete premeditation, Barajas murders a person who unintentionally crashes into the children. Barajas subsequently disposes of the murder weapon and other evidence. It was Barajas poor decisions that directly led to the death of three people. He is a monster and deserves nothing less than the death penalty.

what color is the sky in your world.

 

[master_shake_]

LOL. Damn man you'd make a GREAT attorney. Can I have your number? Don't even think about real life, just go into scientific-levels of math. "The driver was drunk so obviously it wasn't like he planned to hurt anyone, lets just take his license away because he got unlucky this time."

pretty sure he works here

 

[Rinaun]

pretty sure he works here

I'd agree.

 

[Ns1]

Then, with complete premeditation, Barajas murders a person who unintentionally crashes into the children. Barajas subsequently disposes of the murder weapon and other evidence. It was Barajas poor decisions that directly led to the death of three people. He is a monster and deserves nothing less than the death pe

Where's the proof? Seems like enough reasonable doubt in the story to me.

Not guilty (which is not the same as innocent)

 

[Rinaun]

Where's the proof? Seems like enough reasonable doubt in the story to me.

Not guilty (which is not the same as innocent)

I agree the father is not guilty, but I'd be shocked if the judge didn't warn others on the verdict. This would be used in other cases if he doesn't establish the reason he's not being prosecuted is a lack of evidence and not a social justice committed.

P.S. if anyone thinks taking justice into your own hands is right, it's not. What also isn't equally as right is how drunk drivers get treated as though they "weren't aware" of what they were doing. It's almost strong than the insanity plea in some cases and that's just NOT RIGHT. By drinking a sip of alcohol, that's YOUR fucking choice, not mine. Whatever comes out of drinking is YOUR FAULT, not a "oh shit sorry my bad" thing.

 

[waggy]

I don't see how they could find the dad guilty with anything. they have zero proof.

all the proof there say its NOT him.

 

[John Connor]

Wish I could have blew the fucker away that hit me, my dad and mom in the car. He was on drugs and drunk. My dad put his foot through the floorboard, the steering wheel was all warped and his head hit the window and you can see his skull. My mom was knocked out cold and I thought she was dead. I on the other hand bent the front seat in that station wagon in a 45 degree angle with my chest. I only had an abrasion on my forearm and a glass sliver in my ear lobe. When i thought my mom was dead I had my head in her lap. I felt something pour over my head and the whole car smelled like beer. Latter on we learned the drunk, drugged up bastard cock sucker poured beer on us making it look like we were drunk. The asshole didn't realize that they take blood? Fucker had no insurace and had to pay restitution for years. To this day my mom still has problems with her leg.

This is one mother fucker I want to exert the most pain you can. If I say what I would do to that pile of shit I would get an infarction. Generations will weep after I get done with that POS.

 

[John Connor]

I don't see how they could find the dad guilty with anything. they have zero proof.

all the proof there say its NOT him.

Bullets don't have rifling?

 

[Number1]

I don't see how they could find the dad guilty with anything. they have zero proof.

all the proof there say its NOT him.

Obviously there is strong suspicions here.

Nobody should be allowed to carry out their own brand of justice. The murdered individual was dead before it was even proven that he was in fact drunk. Is this the kind of society you want to live in where anybody can just shoot you if they feel you've wronged them?

In this case here, nobody want's to testify against the accused murderer, maybe they fear he may come after them next.

 

[highland145]

Bullets don't have rifling?

No gun.

 

[chimaxi83]

Obviously there is strong suspicions here.

Nobody should be allowed to carry out their own brand of justice. The murdered individual was dead before it was even proven that he was in fact drunk. Is this the kind of society you want to live in where anybody can just shoot you if they feel you've wronged them?

In this case here, nobody want's to testify against the accused murderer, maybe they fear he may come after them next.

In the same exact situation, what would you have done?

 

[waggy]

Obviously there is strong suspicions here.

Nobody should be allowed to carry out their own brand of justice. The murdered individual was dead before it was even proven that he was in fact drunk. Is this the kind of society you want to live in where anybody can just shoot you if they feel you've wronged them?

In this case here, nobody want's to testify against the accused murderer, maybe they fear he may come after them next.

very strong suspicions. but that is not enough to be found guilty.

with no gun, no actual proof and witness's saying it WASN'T him its going to damn impossible. not to mention i suspect they will find a sympathetic jury

or they may think thte kid that killed the mans kids deserved the fate. or that they didn't see anything because he didn't do it.

also this isn't someone who "wronged" you. IF he did shoot the guy he KILLED his sons. IF the idotic kid wouldn't have gotten into the car DRUNK he and the other kids would still be alive. he chose to gamble driving drunk. he lost and now 2 families are destroyed.

Bullets don't have rifling?

what? I don't know and it won't matter since there is no gun

 

[Humpy]

So some dude is drunk, kills your two sons and wanting to kill him is being "overwhelmed with emotion"? I can see where you are coming from, but understand that most sane individuals would become insane after seeing their two children killed by someone who wasn't considerate enough to call a taxi home. Avoiding a 20$ charge cost THREE men their lives, with one having to live with survivors guilt. You don't think that will make the father die at a younger age?

Just going off the posted article the police said there was no way for the murderer to know the victim was drunk. If that is accepted as true then all of the arguments that this is a justified murder become false. I don't see a way around that logic.

Where exactly is the "blinded by rage allows for immediate vengeance" line drawn? If an Asian woman unintentionally crashes her car into someone and kills your wife is it OK to shoot her in the head because you are mad?

I agree in a sense, but that's almost as bad as blaming a rape victim because "he/she dressed that way and deserved it". I look at the worse of two evils and I see the true victim here is the innocent father who was just trying to make it home. For the record, there isn't any laws about pushing your car home, but there are laws about drinking and driving. I mean fuck bro, there are even sad soppy commercials about it. They tell you not to drink and drive before you can even drive. I also find it almost impossible at .175 that this guy hit them due to it being "too dark". That is TWICE the legal limit; you'd be swerving like crazy regardless of lighting conditions.

I believe there are laws governing child endangerment as well as how to handle a roadside breakdown. Yes, for very good reason DUI is illegal also. Unfortunately, there is no one to apply those laws to in this case.

I see what you did there. You'd make a great attorney. Premeditation when it's clearly blinding rage from seeing your children pass away because some asshole wanted to get trashed at a bar.

As described in the quoted article the murderer made the decision to kill and put the decision in to action. That is premeditation. That the victim was drunk appears to have been irrelevant to the killer as he did not have that fact available to him when he made the decision to kill.

He got mad and killed someone. That is what murderers typically do.

LOL. Damn man you'd make a GREAT attorney. Can I have your number? Don't even think about real life, just go into scientific-levels of math. "The driver was drunk so obviously it wasn't like he planned to hurt anyone, lets just take his license away because he got unlucky this time."

Again the victims sobriety appears to be something that was ascertained well after the fact.

I don't see any articles proving he had the weapon, and eye-witness accounts show that nobody knows who shot him. It's PRESUMED Barajas did it because hes the only one with proper intent, but they found ZERO gunshot residue on his hand. If were playing the presumption game, can I presume the driver intended on hitting the car? 1 for 1 right? We can then call it self-defense; who knows if the drunk driver was going to get out and finish the dad off like the other kids!1!!1! If were ARENT playing that game, please stop "presuming" he had a gun. That's why this is going to court.

I agree, the court case will be difficult because evidence was disposed of. I can't believe that the murder was a coincidental event unrelated to the crash but I guess it's possible. What do you believe happened?

 

[John Connor]

No gun.

Oh!

 

[SunnyD]

^I wouldn't see first degree sticking. Felony murder though, I could get behind that. This "intoxicated manslaughter" bullshit is just that: bullshit. You know damn well you are intoxicated and shouldn't be driving. You made a choice to break the law and that choice resulted in the death of someone. 25 to life. We need to boost up the prison population anyway, we won't be getting nearly as many drug offenders in there now.

And that's not premeditated because...?

Yes, I know it's a stretch. The argument against is several-fold.
- It will be argued that the driver was inebriated and therefore didn't have full mental capacity to make proper decisions such as to not drive. I'd counter that they weren't inebriated before they drank, and they knew the risks of doing so before taking that first sip.
- The got into a car while drunk. See the original excuse. I'll counter that they could just as easily have avoided taking a car to whatever venue before drinking in the first place.
- They had no intention of killing anyone. This is the sticking point, and why it's currently listed as involuntary manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter in most municipalities. And that's where I think that the problem lays. These individuals damn well know that they are going to cause damage more often than not getting into a car drunk before they drink, yet they do it anyway because they're not going to get caught until they hurt somebody. And assuming they do get caught, they get a slap on the wrist for half a dozen times or more until they do actually hurt somebody. When they finally do hurt somebody, they go to jail for a couple years and then end up doing it all over again.

This is the mindset of a drunk driver.

 

[Humpy]

pretty sure he works here

My extensive knowledge comes from what I remember of two semesters of business law in college. I don't claim otherwise.

 

[vi edit]

This case is fascinating.

He "didn't own a gun" but bullets consistent with the shooting were found at his house. Gun shots heard, a guy has a bullet in his head, but there's no residue to be found.

The whole thing just feels like the local cops took a look at things (or knew the guy) and assessed the situation. Then went back to the shooter and said "Yeah, we're going to do some labs for paperworks sake, but your hands look kind of dirty. Would you want to wash them first?" And then they had the courtesy to tell him "Oh by the way, if you may happen to own a fire arm that could possibly match those bullets...lose it somewhere very very far away and hard to ever trace. Yeah that would be great".

The whole thing just feels baked to me and it's got the power of public perception that makes most ignore it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

This is why I'd make a great juror. I wouldn't convict the guy even if he did it. Some people just need killing.

Ditto. That's a completely legit defense in my book and in this case whoever whacked the scum deserve a medal, not a trial.

 

[waggy]

This case is fascinating.

He "didn't own a gun" but bullets consistent with the shooting were found at his house. Gun shots heard, a guy has a bullet in his head, but there's no residue to be found.

The whole thing just feels like the local cops took a look at things (or knew the guy) and assessed the situation. Then went back to the shooter and said "Yeah, we're going to do some labs for paperworks sake, but your hands look kind of dirty. Would you want to wash them first?" And then they had the courtesy to tell him "Oh by the way, if you may happen to own a fire arm that could possibly match those bullets...lose it somewhere very very far away and hard to ever trace. Yeah that would be great".

The whole thing just feels baked to me and it's got the power of public perception that makes most ignore it.

and that is very possible too.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just going off the posted article the police said there was no way for the murderer to know the victim was drunk. If that is accepted as true then all of the arguments that this is a justified murder become false. I don't see a way around that logic.

Never been around drunk people before? They literally smell of alcohol

As described in the quoted article the murderer made the decision to kill and put the decision in to action. That is premeditation. That the victim was drunk appears to have been irrelevant to the killer as he did not have that fact available to him when he made the decision to kill.

You see here, when you use the word murderer I automatically think of hte drunk driver...please be more clear with your statements

The fact that the driver was drunk could of been easily assertained by approaching the car and smelling booze on the driver.

Again the victims sobriety appears to be something that was ascertained well after the fact.

There were two victims who definitely weren't drunk who will never live to be adults. Drunk drivers are never the victim.

I agree, the court case will be difficult because evidence was disposed of. I can't believe that the murder was a coincidental event unrelated to the crash but I guess it's possible. What do you believe happened?

What you believe and what is factual are not the same.

A drunk driver killed some children, I know he won't do it again.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This case is fascinating.

He "didn't own a gun" but bullets consistent with the shooting were found at his house. Gun shots heard, a guy has a bullet in his head, but there's no residue to be found.

The whole thing just feels like the local cops took a look at things (or knew the guy) and assessed the situation. Then went back to the shooter and said "Yeah, we're going to do some labs for paperworks sake, but your hands look kind of dirty. Would you want to wash them first?" And then they had the courtesy to tell him "Oh by the way, if you may happen to own a fire arm that could possibly match those bullets...lose it somewhere very very far away and hard to ever trace. Yeah that would be great".

The whole thing just feels baked to me and it's got the power of public perception that makes most ignore it.

very feasible.

 

[Grooveriding]

So he loses two of his children and this moron decides to become a murderer and deprive his remaining children of a father ?

As idiotic and reckless as the drunk driver.