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

[ch33zw1z]

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.

That's the problem with our society's stance on drunk driving. Assuming it went down like you're saying, I don't see those things as equal. When drunk drivers are consistently prosecuted as murderer's, then I'll agree.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Does anyone know if the conditions were such that even a non-intoxicated driver had a good chance of hitting them?

(Yes, I know this thread is primarily about what the dad did after the fact, the evils of drunk driving (agreed), etc.)

 

[smackababy]

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.

Couldn't one assume seeing two of your kids killed before your eyes because some fuck decided he wanted to save $20 on a cab fare send a person into a grief stricken insanity? I am going to guess if there was actually evidence against the father (which there doesn't seem to be, but the I doubt the police are looking that hard for it), a temporary insanity defense would work pretty well.

Hell, in Houston a lady plead that (and wasn't convicted of first degree murder) because she claimed seeing her husband leaving a hotel with his mistress set her off in a blind rage and that caused her to (with their 14 year old daughter in the car, btw) run him over not once, but twice.

 

[z1ggy]

Does anyone know if the conditions were such that even a non-intoxicated driver had a good chance of hitting them?

(Yes, I know this thread is primarily about what the dad did after the fact, the evils of drunk driving (agreed), etc.)

It sounds like it was a rural road, so likely not lit very well. However, if you had your head lights and high beams on (I put them on when I'm driving down unlit back roads) and were following the speed limit, I find it hard to imagine you could hit them unless it was a blind turn on a road where the speed limit was 45mph+.

 

[Humpy]

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

LOL Why are you asking me? Ask the county investigator who said that it wasn't known immediately after the crash that the victim was drunk.

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

Nothing I could ever state would change the way you think.

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

Again, you may have a canine sense of smell but the investigators seemed to have claimed otherwise.

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

Is that factual or just what you believe?

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.

That's some pretty in-depth analysis. Good job.

 

[Grooveriding]

That's the problem with our society's stance on drunk driving. Assuming it went down like you're saying, I don't see those things as equal. When drunk drivers are consistently prosecuted as murderer's, then I'll agree.

I agree that any informed and lucid adult knows when they get behind the wheel drunk they become a deadly weapon and should be charged with murder. The current state of whatever the law is and one's frustration with that is no justification to commit murder though and it's that simple.

Outrage and anger is no excuse to commit homicide. This man is a bad father and reckless human being and should be locked up just like the drunk driver should of been.

 

[Blackjack200]

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.

Then why did they find the bullets?

 

[vi edit]

Then why did they find the bullets?

To make it look like some semblance of police investigation was being done? No clue. Like I said this whole case is fascinating to me.

 

[highland145]

Then why did they find the bullets?

He or the wife did it. But the DA will play hell proving it and getting a conviction.

 

[Humpy]

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.

People that drive drunk are a huge problem. It is terrible when they kill someone. Even worse is people who intentionally act to kill others out of anger, jealousy, etc. Then there are crooked police who pick and choose when to apply law, making a farce of the entire system.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Couldn't one assume seeing two of your kids killed before your eyes because some fuck decided he wanted to save $20 on a cab fare send a person into a grief stricken insanity? I am going to guess if there was actually evidence against the father (which there doesn't seem to be, but the I doubt the police are looking that hard for it), a temporary insanity defense would work pretty well.

Yeah, any jury would want to believe temporary insanity rather than convicting the dad. But the lack of physical evidence kind of discounts that. Getting rid of the weapon and cleaning hands well enough to pass a powder residue test shows a clear and rational mind. If I was going to whack somebody that deserved to die and try to get off on temporary insanity I'd try to act a little more insane. Covering yourself in the drunks blood and lying there in a fetal position shouting Justin Bieber lyrics would be a good start towards establishing insanity as an alibi.

 

[highland145]

Covering yourself in the drunks blood and lying there in a fetal position shouting Justin Bieber lyrics would be a good start towards establishing insanity as an alibi.

QFT

 

[smackababy]

Yeah, any jury would want to believe temporary insanity rather than convicting the dad. But the lack of physical evidence kind of discounts that. Getting rid of the weapon and cleaning hands well enough to pass a powder residue test shows a clear and rational mind. If I was going to whack somebody that deserved to die and try to get off on temporary insanity I'd try to act a little more insane. Covering yourself in the drunks blood and lying there in a fetal position shouting Justin Bieber lyrics would be a good start towards establishing insanity as an alibi.

The entire idea of temporary insanity is that at some point the defendant regained said insanity. He could argue he was insane during the murder, but then regained his senses after the fact and was sane during this obstructing of justice.

 

[Rinaun]

Outrage and anger is no excuse to commit homicide. This man is a bad father and reckless human being and should be locked up just like the drunk driver should of been.

Right, so the guy is losing his two sons and what will the drunk driver be charged with again? 10-15 years at most? He then can drink after parole as he pleases.

example:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/c...r-who-caused-2002-crash-left-two-dead-paroled

Sorry, but until the law is revamped I think the man was justified if he DID kill the drunk driver. Anyone who denies you can tell if someone is drunk at .175 has never seen .175; you'd have to be a professional drinker not to smell or act drunk at .175 BAC.

edit: for reference

0.06–0.10 BAC
Blunted feelings
Disinhibition
Extroversion
Reasoning
Depth perception
Peripheral vision
Glare recovery

0.11–0.20 BAC
Over-expression
Emotional swings
Angriness or sadness
Boisterousness
SuperHuman Feeling
Decreased Libido
Reflexes
Reaction time
Gross motor control
Staggering
Slurred speech

0.21–0.29 BAC:
Stupor
Loss of understanding
Impaired sensations
Severe motor impairment
Loss of consciousness
Memory

the driver was .175 AT TESTING (not at incident time). One hour would be roughly .02 loss; there is a high likelihood that the drunk driver was at .19-.2 BAC when the incident occurred.

 

[Ackmed]

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.

Do YOU have all these items in your case in case it breaks down? Didn't think so. (even though you will attempt to say yes that you do). A car breaks down, you push it. This has been happening ever since cars were invented.

You don't know that he did it. You don't have proof. But good job making assumptions.

 

[Grooveriding]

That's just not the case though. There is no excuse to murder someone except in imminent threat to your life from them. This man committed homicide and needs to go to prison.

You can't just murder someone with impunity. Who is to say he even knew the man was drunk ? Having been in a car accident I can tell you if you take a good knock you're completely out of it and would appear drunk. Did he run over to the guy and sniff him for alcohol ? Or just snap, lose control and decide to act on his impulses ? If this father did it, he saw what happened, snapped and murdered him. To prison he goes.

If you want to live in a wild west society, feel free. Civilized behaviour does not include murdering with impunity because you don't like the rules.

 

[Rinaun]

If you want to live in a wild west society, feel free. Civilized behaviour does not include murdering with impunity because you don't like the rules.

That's funny, last time I checked the united states started the term "wild west" plus we have people looting because they feel racially oppressed, and there is a high likelihood that this man will get away. Take a step back and realize that while vigilantism is looked down upon, most of the time societies will ignore it due to the severe guilt of the offending parties. Look at rapists, thieves, and murderers in other countries. Some die before they are arrested due to entire communities killing them and not calling local authorities. If you think it's wrong for someone to shoot a drunk person who hit and killed two others, then you should probably realize that the whole scenario would have been avoided if the drunk driver had not of killed his entire future gene pool in one blow.


tldr; you are wrong, this guy was right in shooting him, and if the driver wasn't drunk this guy would be fucked. But he was, and I'd bet he smelled like liquor.

 

[vi edit]

Sorry, but until the law is revamped I think the man was justified if he DID kill the drunk driver. Anyone who denies you can tell if someone is drunk at .175 has never seen .175; you'd have to be a professional drinker not to smell or act drunk at .175 BAC.

Go slam your head into a wall at 40MPH and tell me if you don't experience some of those same things.

I've been at the scene of an accident before where a minivan blew through a stop sign and t-boned a cavalier. The cavalier driver staggered out of the car and I caught them and helped them to the side of the road where they looked liked they were half comatose.

That's not a judgement for bystanders to make. Sorry.

 

[Phoenix86]

quoted old post...

 

[Nebor]

Hope there's one person on his jury that nullifies.

 

[ThinClient]

Go slam your head into a wall at 40MPH and tell me if you don't experience some of those same things.

I've been at the scene of an accident before where a minivan blew through a stop sign and t-boned a cavalier. The cavalier driver staggered out of the car and I caught them and helped them to the side of the road where they looked liked they were half comatose.

That's not a judgement for bystanders to make. Sorry.

Yep. You certainly can't smell alcohol on a drunk person at all.

And like it fucking matters when this douche canoe mowed down his 2 kids right in front of him.

Fuck that dead drunk driver.

 

[Grooveriding]

tldr; you are wrong, this guy was right in shooting him, and if the driver wasn't drunk this guy would be fucked. But he was, and I'd bet he smelled like liquor.

Cool opinion, bro.

There is a system of laws to try to bring some justice(balance) to society. Because a few bad apples lacking self-control act out and disregard the laws, doesn't diminish what they are. Trying to add flexibility and caveats to the system simply opens it up for much worse.

I don't live in the US and I'm glad I don't, because you're right, there is a good chance he will get away with it because the system will be disregarded. It's what makes the entire system bankrupt and corrupt.

 

[Rinaun]

Go slam your head into a wall at 40MPH and tell me if you don't experience some of those same things.

I've been at the scene of an accident before where a minivan blew through a stop sign and t-boned a cavalier. The cavalier driver staggered out of the car and I caught them and helped them to the side of the road where they looked liked they were half comatose.

That's not a judgement for bystanders to make. Sorry.

I have multiple times doing stupid shit. I've also been in several accidents. Try getting slammed into a brick wall in a go-kart going 65 MPH, plus numerous passenger incidents and family experience racing. You don't act "drunk", you act dazed. Can I ask if you have been hit at 40MPH? I was able to get out but I was slightly stunned. If someone started screaming at me I would be able to respond. My father has rolled multiple vehicles without harnessing equipment at WAY over 60mph and he said at best you can't stand but vocal response is fine. Also, this wasn't 40mph head to head, this was 40mph hitting a neutral parked car; there is NO WAY this guy was dazed.

 

[Rinaun]

Cool opinion, bro.

There is a system of laws to try to bring some justice(balance) to society. Because a few bad apples lacking self-control act out and disregard the laws, doesn't diminish what they are. Trying to add flexibility and caveats to the system simply opens it up for much worse.

I don't live in the US and I'm glad I don't, because you're right, there is a good chance he will get away with it because the system will be disregarded. It's what makes the entire system bankrupt and corrupt.

The system was bankrupt and corrupt when you let people who drink run over 2 innocent children. What is your countries policy on drunk drivers? Do you let them go like ours does after 10 years?

 

[Humpy]

Anyone who denies you can tell if someone is drunk at .175 has never seen .175; you'd have to be a professional drinker not to smell or act drunk at .175 BAC.

I'm on my way home from the liquor store with six bottles of booze on my back seat for my wedding reception on Saturday. You get a flat tire and decide to stop and change it halfway into the road. I crash into you, kill your dog, lose consciousness from the collision, and all my booze splashes around inside my car. Is it OK to shoot me in the head because you determine for a fact that I am drunk as hell?

What if I'm having some type of medical episode where the symptoms match a bunch of stuff from your list and I crash into you? Still OK to shoot me because, with all of your knowledge and experience, you have determined I am drunk as hell and deserve it?

The murderer in this case demonstrated extremely poor decision making capability. It is unbelievable to me that he was able to make the decision to kill based off a sound analysis of his victims sobriety.