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

[highland145]

What is going on here?

You have just entered a fugue state. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Dari]

Go back and read my posts then.

You have a really wrong perspective.

I was going to be an engineer because being a doc was too much. I interned in that.

Then picked pharmacy. Interned in that at it was boring right when my ex-wife broke her neck.

I was an athlete, and my IQ was at genius level.

I like to go out and fuck, drink, etc. I am safe when I do.

You are an attention whore. If you weren't you'd contribute to the forum.

I am just me.

Actually, I tried contributing to this forum years ago in labor economics (competition/tournament theory before I switched concentration to macroeconomic) but I came to realize that anyone can come and shit on your threads (like you are doing with this thread) and, suddenly, it's taken a whole new direction. I love those subjects too much to have them ignored here. So, I just do what I enjoy: listening to the opinions of others. I may contribute but it's rarely in a serious manner. But I enjoy the opinions of others and that is why I stick around here. Not sure what you're doing here other than telling us your victim/savior stories.

 

[Vapid Cabal]

You have just entered a fugue state. Enjoy your stay.

I am just a bit perplexed. Thread title has nothing to do with the last several posts.
From what I can tell, this has become a thread about justifying drunken driving.

 

[steve wilson]

I'm living in England so this isn't in the news... is there a site I can follow this case on, with out all the drama of this thread?

 

[highland145]

I am just a bit perplexed. Thread title has nothing to so with last several posts half of the thread.
From what I can tell, this has become a thread about justifying drunken driving.

fixed.

Alky derailed it. No idea why the mods haven't locked it yet.

 

[highland145]

I'm living in England so this isn't in the news... is there a site I can follow this case on, with out all the drama of this thread?

http://abc13.com/news/emotions-run-high-in-angleton-murder-trial/272933/

 

[steve wilson]

http://abc13.com/news/emotions-run-high-in-angleton-murder-trial/272933/

Thank you

 

[Craig234]

I posted up some decent papers that explain what you are claiming is simply not true. If you choose not to read them (or have read, but do not understand them) then there is no debate that can be sanely had.

No, I didn't see your links. I don't need to, because the information I've seen from credible sources is strong enough not to feel a need to see them.

If you really think you have links that are able to disprove what basically every state and federal agency I've seen have reported as the studies they use, post that.

In the meantime, here's a chart summarizing the statistics. Note the .08 level:

You can easily google for the research.

Also any kind of thing has a 'weight' that could contribute to an accident.

Dirty Windshield/Faulty Wipers, Improper alignment/tire pressure/condition, etc.

Yes, and there are practical issues in laws. So there are things it makes sense to regulate and things that are tolerated as risks.

The fact some things are tolerated as risks does not justify the unnecessary risk of increasing the chances of an accident several times by drinking.

You are a victim of the propaganda to promote even lower BAL levels in order not to save lives but to generate more revenue.

You haven't proven it's ok to increase the chances of accident several times by drinking.

You did not prove anything about propaganda being involved in that fact.

A revenue motive does not prove that it's ok to increase the chances of an accident several times by drinking.

If you could show why that increase in risk is ok, show it. You can't.

The revenue argument is only valid if you show it's causing wrongful law enforcement. Not allowing several times higher chances of accidents is not wrongful law enforcement.

The facts are people at 0.08% really aren't the ones getting into accidents nor fatalities.

As the chart shows, people at .08% are causing accidents, including fatal accidents at a rate several times higher than people at 0.0%.

Whether people at even higher levels cause the same number, or hugely more accidents, does not make it ok for people at .08 to increase the chance of an accident several times.

Try to help yourself, rather than me understand...it's clear you do not understand what you are arguing.

No, that's incorrect. It's clear I do and you do not. Saying that does not prove your point.

Many people are arrested for DUI at 0.08% that were not driving their vehicle. They didn't have an intention to drive. There is a huge gray area in the law that allows for an arrest simply if you have your keys X feet from your vehicle.

To me that is way beyond any fair law.

Likewise, arresting people for doing the right thing and just sleeping in their car is equally crap.

I'm open to arguments if the law is allowing people with no intention of driving to be arrested.

I understand that a lot of drunk drivers are caught just before or after driving drunk - for example, found on the side of the road sleeping it off.

The circumstances matter. How did they get there? Is it clear they had to drive? If the engine is warm, and it's not a hot or cold day to run the air conditioner, it's hard to argue they weren't driving recently. But if they're sleeping in their car in the parking lot of the bar, I'd assume they are probably sleeping it off instead of driving.

I don't hate MADD, I am just explaining they aren't about saving lives either and that is why the founder stepped down (or was fired for not cooperating depending on what story you believe).

If they're out getting unjust laws passed for no good reason, why don't you hate them?

You haven't proven anything about MADD passing unfair laws that makes your statement that it's ok to drive at .08%, increasing the chance of an accident several times, justified.

 

[02ranger]

What does the chart mean by single vehicle and all vehicles? Is it saying single-car crashes and multi-car crashes?

 

[alkemyst]

What does the chart mean by single vehicle and all vehicles? Is it saying single-car crashes and multi-car crashes?

Single vehicle is where the DUI driver only wrecked their car and did not collide with another vehicle.

Multi-car is where more than one car was involved and at least one of the drivers was DUI.

Note that the DUI driver in these cases may not have been the true cause of the accident, but the way the law works, they always are charged that way.

Also "Relative Risk" is very ambiguous. Not sure what that is a measure of truly.

 

[alkemyst]

No, I didn't see your links. I don't need to, because the information I've seen from credible sources is strong enough not to feel a need to see them.

What are your credible sources? You are very ignorant to a ton of things involving DUI to claim such knowledge.

If you really think you have links that are able to disprove what basically every state and federal agency I've seen have reported as the studies they use, post that.

It's there in the data I posted that you choose not to read.

In the meantime, here's a chart summarizing the statistics. Note the .08 level:

You can easily google for the research.

WTF does "Relative Risk" mean and with what metrics is it based on?

As the chart shows, people at .08% are causing accidents, including fatal accidents at a rate several times higher than people at 0.0%.

Whether people at even higher levels cause the same number, or hugely more accidents, does not make it ok for people at .08 to increase the chance of an accident several times.

Where is it mentioning fatalities? I think you are interpreting a graph based on things it's not showing.

I'm open to arguments if the law is allowing people with no intention of driving to be arrested.

I understand that a lot of drunk drivers are caught just before or after driving drunk - for example, found on the side of the road sleeping it off.

The circumstances matter. How did they get there? Is it clear they had to drive? If the engine is warm, and it's not a hot or cold day to run the air conditioner, it's hard to argue they weren't driving recently. But if they're sleeping in their car in the parking lot of the bar, I'd assume they are probably sleeping it off instead of driving.

Except the law doesn't work that way. You can be in the parking lot and still arrested. You can be sleeping in the back seat and still arrested. You could have driven somewhere then got hammered and just went to sleep in your car. Likewise you could be cutting your grass and drinking...if you have your keys in your pocket and pass withing 25-50' of your car they could arrest you because you could have had intent to drive.

The laws are totally ambiguous to many things.

If they're out getting unjust laws passed for no good reason, why don't you hate them?

You haven't proven anything about MADD passing unfair laws that makes your statement that it's ok to drive at .08%, increasing the chance of an accident several times, justified.

MADD has proven itself a lobby first, this is well known. They have tons of agendas they push through the country behind the easy to jump on bandwagon of DUI laws.

 

[02ranger]

Single vehicle is where the DUI driver only wrecked their car and did not collide with another vehicle.

Multi-car is where more than one car was involved and at least one of the drivers was DUI.

Note that the DUI driver in these cases may not have been the true cause of the accident, but the way the law works, they always are charged that way.

Also "Relative Risk" is very ambiguous. Not sure what that is a measure of truly.

OK, that's what I took it to mean as well, but the wording of "all" vehicles instead of "multi" vehicles seemed confusing. Thanks.

 

[alkemyst]

OK, that's what I took it to mean as well, but the wording of "all" vehicles instead of "multi" vehicles seemed confusing. Thanks.

It's a terrible graph to have used for an example. I don't think the poster understands his own argument and is brain washed to believe anything published on this debate.

 

[smackababy]

ITT: one man defends his children's memory and the lives of everyone else this drunkard might injure AND another man defends his DUI conviction and exactly how much alcohol it takes to add additional, unnecessary risk to operating a motor vehicle.

 

[alkemyst]

ITT: one man defends his children's memory and the lives of everyone else this drunkard might injure AND another man defends his DUI conviction and exactly how much alcohol it takes to add additional, unnecessary risk to operating a motor vehicle.

The OP nor anyone else here are the victim of this crime.

Do you realize that?

 

[StoutMaster]

Jeez... you might just be the unluckiest person on earth.

Your house goes into foreclosure because the bank screws up.
You blow .168 on four beers.

I'd guess there's more incredibly unlucky events in your life too. I should lurk more. But those two alone, wow.

Curious, after your .168 blow, what did your blood test show?

 

[Craig234]

It's a terrible graph to have used for an example. I don't think the poster understands his own argument and is brain washed to believe anything published on this debate.

Unable prove your point, you have sunk to gibberish dishonest ad hominem garbage. You have lost the discussion. You were invited to freshly link to data and you chose not to.

 

[Rinaun]

Lol this thread just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Kushina]

Our justice system is a piece of crap, If my kids were killed like this (not that I have kids), and I was pissed I wouldn't have counted on our justice system. Might have done the same. I personally would have copped off the guys arms and legs so he could suffer for the rest of his life but that's just me. I would've called 911 first though to make sure he lives.

Fucker.

 

[waggy]

http://abc13.com/news/emotions-run-high-in-angleton-murder-trial/272933/

wow.

While being questioned by Cammack, Lloyd Anderson, an ex-deputy with the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office, told jurors Wednesday he failed to put in his report the detail about the gunfire he heard after arriving at the crash site. Anderson, who told jurors he was fired from the sheriff's office for not including more details in his reports, said he probably did inform an investigator about the gunfire.


This is huge. there was more gunfire AFTER police came on the scene (and with the father). Yet it was not put in reports and he "probably" informed the investigator.

WTF! at least he was fired. that could have (and should have) cleared the guy.


as for rest the thread MODS can we clean t his up? half the shit has nothing to do with the story.

 

[highland145]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Jurors-watch-dash-cam-video-from-crash-that-5700965.php

Tellez and Banda's half-brother, Antonio Rodriguez, who also testified, said they were following Banda home in another vehicle after a night of drinking when the crash occurred.
Details of Rodriguez's testimony also contradicted his cousin's account of the night, including whether Barajas was inside or outside of the truck after the crash.
Both men admitted to leaving the scene after a confrontation with Barajas. Neither called 911 and did not contact authorities until days after the incident. During their testimony, the men told jurors they were in shock and expressed remorse.

wut? Why not?

 

[highland145]

A little more info.
http://news.yahoo.com/deputy-gunfire-driver-shot-not-report-180136992.html

A Texas father's claims he did not fatally shoot a drunken driver who caused an accident that killed his two sons seemed to be bolstered Wednesday by testimony from prosecution witnesses.


Two of the witnesses — a current deputy and a former one — told jurors they failed to note in reports that more gunfire had taken place well after the driver was shot. A third witness, a cousin of the motorist, gave contradictory testimony about whether David Barajas had hit Jose Banda before allegedly shooting him.
Barajas, 32, is accused of fatally shooting the 20-year-old 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.
Barajas' attorney, Sam Cammack, has told jurors his client did not kill Banda and was focused only on saving his sons.
A current deputy with the Brazoria County Sheriff's Office and a former deputy with the department told jurors they failed to note in reports that they had heard more gunfire after arriving at the crash site.
Ex-deputy Lloyd Anderson, who told jurors he was fired for not including more details in his reports, said he probably did inform an investigator about the gunfire.
View gallery


When Cammack asked another deputy, Jason Knopp, why he failed to include the gunfire detail in his report, Knopp said, "No answer for it, sir."
Cammack has focused his efforts at Barajas' trial, which began Tuesday, on suggesting to jurors that authorities unfairly zeroed in on a grieving father as the killer without fully investigating other possible suspects. Cammack has suggested Banda could have been shot by several other people who witnesses say fled the crash site.
Anderson said a search the night of the accident failed to find any individuals who had reportedly fled the scene.
Gerardo Tellez, Banda's cousin, testified that he and Banda had become intoxicated on Jagermeister and possibly beer on the day of the accident. Tellez said he followed Banda home and witnessed his cousin slam into Barajas' truck.
Tellez said he fled after seeing the "body parts" of the boys on the road. He said before leaving he saw Barajas approach Banda's vehicle and start punching Banda through the driver's side window.
View gallery



Cammack later showed jurors a crime scene photo of Banda's car and the driver's side window was up.
"You're going to stick with that even though we saw (the photo with the window up)?" Cammack asked Tellez.
"Yes," Tellez replied.
Legal experts have said the case could be difficult to prosecute given the lack of hard evidence: no weapon was recovered, no witnesses identified Barajas as the shooter and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative. If convicted, Barajas faces up to life in prison.
An even greater challenge for prosecutors could be overcoming sympathy for Barajas. Many residents in Alvin, 30 miles southeast of Houston, have supported Barajas. Some have said they might have done the same thing in a similar situation.
Despite no murder weapon, prosecutors have said they have other evidence, including ammunition found at Barajas' home that they say is similar to a bullet fragment found in Banda's car. Cammack says police found a shell casing for a different weapon, a 9mm handgun, at the scene and that Barajas couldn't have had enough time to retrieve a gun from his home and shoot Banda before authorities arrived.
During ex-deputy Anderson's testimony, dash-camera video from his patrol vehicle of the crash site was played for jurors. In the video, Cindy Barajas, the boys' mother, can be heard screaming, "No, not my babies."

 

[marvdmartian]

Put me on the jury, he'll walk away a free man. Sick and tired of these idiots who can't get it through their heads that driving drunk is not tolerable, and you'll probably end up killing someone.

Justifiable homicide, in my eyes. :thumbsup:

 

[waggy]

so he was fallowed home by other drunks who's story is contradicted by facts. The police ignore other evidence and zero in on the father.

great police work i say.

The guy walks. no way in hell should they get a guilty verdict. in fact i think it's so bad they should be sued.

 

[alkemyst]

Jeez... you might just be the unluckiest person on earth.

Your house goes into foreclosure because the bank screws up.
You blow .168 on four beers.

I'd guess there's more incredibly unlucky events in your life too. I should lurk more. But those two alone, wow.

Curious, after your .168 blow, what did your blood test show?

They don't take a blood test after the breath test (at least in Florida).

I have been lucky in life too.

The mortgage situation is probably the worst thing as there is not a lot of recourse. I have a call with my attorney this afternoon for an update which is going to be more than likely "nothing new, just keep going". I haven't paid my mortgage in three years which is a good thing, but my credit is screwed. Only Discover and one other card agreed to ignore the mortgage reporting and kept me in good standing. My other creditors despite sending in payments like this:
12/08/09 RoomsToGo - Payoff -$2,723.90
12/08/09 Chase - 0982 -$150.00
12/08/09 Discover - Payoff -$6,038.75
12/08/09 Citi - 3264 - Payoff -$3,744.50
12/08/09 Juniper - 2980 - Payoff -$3,835.00
12/08/09 Capital One - 8125 -$2,750.00
12/28/09 Juniper - 2980 - Balance Transfer payoff -$4,200.00
12/28/09 Capital One - 8125 - Balance Transfer payoff -$2,730.20
01/13/10 Capital One - Payoff -$1,442.97
01/13/10 AMEX - Payoff -$1,537.81

Still pushed my rates on my remaining balance (which I paid down from about a high of $80k which was mostly my school education the second time I went to only about $20-25k) from <8% and two of my cards were fixed at 5 and 6% to over 25% and took away my fixed rate as well and the cards that didn't raise my rates immediately blocked balance transfers and kept dropping my limits to make my current balance until they went to the minimums ($300-500).

People can believe what they want. I have no reason to lie. There was no reason to bring my DUI up if I wasn't going to be honest about it.