man that killed drunk driver not guilty

[Beowulf]

This is the same state as the 'affluenza' case.. I am guessing the driver was not white or rich?

Will this mean people killing drunk drivers in the future can point to this case as precedent in texas?

District Court cases (or equivalent) have essentially no precedental value. Especially ones decided by a jury. Jurors don't give reasoning why they found a person to be guilty or not to the court. They just return a verdict.

[Spekio]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The man was accused of a crime, tried, judged by a jury of his peers, and found innocent. Sounds like rule of law to me.

I'm not saying anything about the trial - people were pretty much agreeing with the fact that we don't have the full picture. My point was pretty much that IF he killed according to the prosecutor's version, we could not apply the exclusion of punibility. Most jurisdictions disregard heath of passion if one has time to mull over their actions - like this case.

It seems that he is saying that if you hurt/kill someone you love you can seek revenge yourself - to which I vehemently disagree.

[Tanasinn]

No, it seems Havok is saying that murdering someone because they killed your children is fairly logical, if not necessarily permissible, and any sort of rehabilitative psychological therapy would be somewhat pointless because the actions aren't indicative of someone with a psychological problem to begin with.

[Mr. Coffee]

No, it seems Havok is saying that murdering someone because they killed your children is fairly logical, if not necessarily permissible, and any sort of rehabilitative psychological therapy would be somewhat pointless because the actions aren't indicative of someone with a psychological problem to begin with.

I can easily counter this by inviting you to have children, letting me get good and drunk, and allowing me to hit them with a car. Are you 100% sure you can maintain your composure?

Can you really?

[Spekio]

No, it seems Havok is saying that murdering someone because they killed your children is fairly logical, if not necessarily permissible, and any sort of rehabilitative psychological therapy would be somewhat pointless because the actions aren't indicative of someone with a psychological problem to begin with.

Human nature would dictate an immediate response. Now a cold, premeditated response is personal vengeance. The fact that he made sure of leaving no traces of gunpowder show his mental disposition. This is beyond reasonable.

[Mr. Coffee]

No, it seems Havok is saying that murdering someone because they killed your children is fairly logical, if not necessarily permissible, and any sort of rehabilitative psychological therapy would be somewhat pointless because the actions aren't indicative of someone with a psychological problem to begin with.

Human nature would dictate an immediate response. Now a cold, premeditated response is personal vengeance. The fact that he made sure of leaving no traces of gunpowder show his mental disposition. This is beyond reasonable.

Define "cold, premeditated", bro. If you just watched this man kis your sons, and you, down deep knew there wasa gun in yoour house, not a 100m away... They just died in fronf of you. How fucking long do we have to wait for premeditatgion to happen? A minute? Five? In the first ten seconds of understanding I am still alive and my son is not, that drunk motherfucker's fate is sealed. I wouldn't even walk 100m to do it, I have a CCW and carry the entire time I leave my home except where legally prohibited. But even so, I'd walk five hundred times that distance. that mother fucker dies. That's all there is to it. Daddy response kicks in, my son is harmed/in danger, the threat must be ended.

Seriously, if you do not have a child yourself, then do me and every other parent on this board a favor and shut your mouths about what you would or wouldn't do or what the state of mind of thta father was. You do not know, you cannot know. Not until you've been a dad or a mom yourself.

[Spekio]

Snip

I'm trying to clarify the difference. Read my previous posts. Were him to get a tire iron and bludgeon the guy to death or just shoot him with the firearm he had on his pocket no one could blame him - human nature.

However look at what we supposedly got - and the reason I care - IF this guy did it, he went home, got gloves, came back, killed the guy and then got rid of the murder weapon. This is not standard human response. This person did not have their mental capabilities impaired by his anger.

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm trying to clarify the difference. Read my previous posts. Were him to get a tire iron and bludgeon the guy to death or just shoot him with the firearm he had on his pocket no one could blame him - human nature.

Ok, we're on the same page here....

However look at what we supposedly got - and the reason I care - IF this guy did it, he went home, got gloves, came back, killed the guy and then got rid of the murder weapon. This is not standard human response. This person did not have their mental capabilities impaired by his anger.

Go out side right now. There's probably at least on thing in view there that is a known 100m distance to you. Walk to that object at the brisk "someone just killed my child" pace one so rarely encounters in life and count the seconds. Now stop for a second and ponder your dead children while looking at any firearms you may or may not own. Now walk back, again, counting the seconds. I'm guessing less than two minutes has passed.

In that time am I less or more likely to kill the mother fucker that just drunkenly offed my child? I've now ha a good few minutes to ponder the source of my rage and have a focus for that rage, and now that I'm standing there looking at my guns I have a means to vent that rage. Rage.

That's the key fucking word here. How long do we have to wait for that rage to cool to "premeditation"?

P.S. Are you a parent? If not then shut the fuck up already.

[Spekio]

Coffee, first of all, having or not having a kid matter not to this discussion. I'm not sure you are being obtuse on purpose. Ponder the same scenario you laid out now add "Geez, I know what I am doing is wrong, let's make sure I do not leave evidence for an eventual trial". Did you consider this? If you did you are at least a sociopath.

[Mr. Coffee]

Coffee, first of all, having or not having a kid matter not to this discussion.

We're talking about a father that was found not guilty of shooting the motherfucker that ,arguably according to some members of this board, murdered his sons while driving drunk. Having a kid will give you a LOT of insight into what that man may or may not have been thinking. If you don't have children or, failing that, a very close relation/friend that you an imagine in that same place, then you don't know what the hell you're own about as to that man's state of mind.

Here's the short answer, he wasn't in his mind, right or left or wrong. He just saw both of his boys die right in front of him. I doubt if that man even remembers anything from the time of the crash to the time the cops arrived and beyond.

I'm not sure you are being obtuse on purpose. Ponder the same scenario you laid out now add "Geez, I know what I am doing is wrong, let's make sure I do not leave evidence for an eventual trial". Did you consider this? If you did you are at least a sociopath.

Yup, you're either not a parent or you're full of shit. Which?

[Spekio]

We're talking about a father that was found not guilty of shooting the motherfucker that ,arguably according to some members of this board, murdered his sons while driving drunk. Having a kid will give you a LOT of insight into what that man may or may not have been thinking. If you don't have children or, failing that, a very close relation/friend that you an imagine in that same place, then you don't know what the hell you're own about as to that man's state of mind.

Here's the short answer, he wasn't in his mind, right or left or wrong. He just saw both of his boys die right in front of him. I doubt if that man even remembers anything from the time of the crash to the time the cops arrived and beyond.

Yup, you're either not a parent or you're full of shit. Which?

Nice way of sidestepping what I just pointed out. He blacked out yet had his wits enough to not get caught by the police. Wonderful doublethink on your side.

Still, one more time: In our society, you are not entitled to make justice with your own hands. If you do, you face the consequences. The times when the law allows that areexceptions. Justice is no longer a personal, but rather a societal affair. The State dispenses justice. It's the social contract.

My whole posts were discussing if hypothetically this was the case. I don't think the father was wrong in being angry, I'm arguing it does not fit in one of those exceptions. Have I made myself clear now?

[Mr. Coffee]

Nice way of sidestepping what I just pointed out. He blacked out yet had his wits enough to not get caught by the police. Wonderful doublethink on your side.

Either way, he was found Not Guilty. Eat a dick, case closed.

Still, one more time: In our society, you are not entitled to make justice with your own hands.

I completely agree. I am now in a clear state of mind and am not under any mental duress, therefore I agree. What about that state of mind after seeing your child/children die?

If you do, you face the consequences. The times when the law allows that areexceptions. Justice is no longer a personal, but rather a societal affair. The State dispenses justice. It's the social contract.

Glad we agree. The law allows exceptions. Now stop posting.

[Spekio]

Snip

I'm at a loss on how to respond to this. Yes, case closed, no one was even arguing that.


Rather, I want to know what your rationale to define as normal to try to get away with murder while being supposedly in shock from death of two kids.

[madd0ct0r]

given we're going with speculation here, and given he was picked up at the scene of the shooting, but still somehow managed to make sure the gun wasn't found, and the forensics baffled, I suggest sympathetic police officers simply 'didn't see' the evidence and made sure it remained off the books. The prosecutor is ambitious and wanted to make a name for herself, possibly also punishing the police for stepping beyond their role as well, hence it was taken to court. So the father didn't have to be thinking about how to get away with it, rather undermining your suggestion of premeditation. end speculation.

[Mr. Coffee]

Rather, I want to know what your rationale to define as normal to try to get away with murder while being supposedly in shock from death of two kids.

Yes, completely ignore anything I actually said, never mind that no one here (your own weak ass included) has even come close to defining how long one has to wait for rage to be a defining characteristic of the "crime", we have this great big font of fucking wisdom, Spekio the fucking Oblivious, to tell us all what it means. No, don't adress anything, fuckhead, just make a shitball useless post (par for the course for you, btw), and declare a victory.

P.S. eat a dick boy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

given we're going with speculation here, and given he was picked up at the scene of the shooting, but still somehow managed to make sure the gun wasn't found, and the forensics baffled, I suggest sympathetic police officers simply 'didn't see' the evidence and made sure it remained off the books. The prosecutor is ambitious and wanted to make a name for herself, possibly also punishing the police for stepping beyond their role as well, hence it was taken to court. So the father didn't have to be thinking about how to get away with it, rather undermining your suggestion of premeditation. end speculation.

Or he did not do it. There is that. All it takes is ONE forensic technician to blow the whistle on everyone hiding evidence, and in a murder investigation + lethal traffic accident investigation, the whole area would have been crawling with forensics dudes.

Of course it is also possible that the jury did just nullify.

Still, one more time: In our society, you are not entitled to make justice with your own hands.

Not most of the time... but sometimes we are, here in the US. Wen have something called Jury Nullification. It is when the jury pointedly fails to convict a person they know is guilty of a crime because that particular person in that instance is not felt by the jury to be deserving punishment. It is legal. No one likes to talk about it. Knowing about it will get me excluded from juries forever should it be a case where it might come up. But it happens. Most often in cases like this where every person on the jury would have done exactly what the defendant allegedly did. Such as kill the person who murdered their children.

[Korto]

I would prefer people not refer to the two children being killed as 'murder', since murder requires intent to kill. This sounded like an accident. A culpable accident, but an accident none the less, and therefore not murder.
However, it is possible under US law that drunk driving is considered a serious crime that makes any deaths that happen during it murder. If so, I withdraw my objection.

In the real world, as Coffee stated, the father is Not Guilty, because the jury said so. End of story. I won't argue about it, because I wasn't there, didn't hear all they heard, and it won't make any difference in the papers tomorrow. Not Guilty.

However, treating all this as a hypothetical case, where I assume that what I've read in the OP is an accurate and reasonably complete version of events, then this was not justice. The father should have been convicted.
If the father had of had the gun with him, and used it then, it could be argued he acted in the heat of the moment, without any time for thought. The father was not acting in the heat of the moment, but with thought. He had to return home, get the gun, and come back with it. Was he in his right mind? Probably not, but many murders are committed by people not in their right mind. If this driver's father, angered by the death, gets a gun and shoots the father, should he be found not guilty too?
I believe it was jury nullification.
I understand why the father shot the driver, and I understand why the jury nullified; they probably felt he's suffered enough, for one thing; but it wasn't justice.
Justice would have been a conviction, with much of the sentence suspended in recognition of the man's mental state at the time, and his loss.

[Highlord Laan]

I would prefer people not refer to the two children being killed as 'murder', since murder requires intent to kill. This sounded like an accident. A culpable accident, but an accident

The shitpiece got wasted and decided to drive anyway, despite knowing full damned well he was impaired and had no business being behind the wheel. He made the deliberate choice to put the lives over everyone in danger and it resulted in the deaths of two children. There is no excuse for driving drunk. Like hell it wasn't murder.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would prefer people not refer to the two children being killed as 'murder', since murder requires intent to kill. This sounded like an accident. A culpable accident, but an accident

The shitpiece got wasted and decided to drive anyway, despite knowing full damned well he was impaired and had no business being behind the wheel. He made the deliberate choice to put the lives over everyone in danger and it resulted in the deaths of two children. There is no excuse for driving drunk. Like hell it wasn't murder.

It isn't murder and no amount of emotional outrage will make it so.

Though the driver is actually the victim of murder but I can understand why the jury nullified but Korto has a very valid point.

[RogueIce]

Of course that relies on a very big assumption: that the father is the one who did it.

Remember, they never found the murder weapon and he apparently didn't have any GSR on him. Couple that with the blood of an unknown third party found on the scene and that certainly leaves open the possibility that somebody else was responsible for killing the driver.

Was that the case? I don't know, and unless that third party is ever found I suspect we may never know. But I'd argue that it certainly raises some reasonable doubt as to whether or not the father was the shooter. Which could also be enough for the jury; again we'll never know unless a juror comes out and says something, but that could be the reason they decided on an acquittal, rather than jury nullification.

The defense, FWIW, never tried to argue the whole "heat of passion" thing but stuck with "he didn't do it and didn't own a gun" instead, according to the article. Sure one then wonders why he apparently had a holster and ammunition, but I suppose there could be reasons for that. Or not, the father did ditch the gun and cover his tracks and they just got a lucky break with the evidence of a third party.

But again, we'll likely never know and it's certainly not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the father even was the shooter.

[Steve]

I think people went to arguing the principles of the issue of whether such a killing would be justifiable compared to the actual facts of whether it happened in this case.

Or some people are employing "If you are not guilty, comrade, why were you charged?" logic.

[RogueIce]

I think people went to arguing the principles of the issue of whether such a killing would be justifiable compared to the actual facts of whether it happened in this case.

True, but the actual facts of the case are in question.

I mean, I don't think anyone will question that, if you saw something like this happen to your kids and you had your gun already at hand and shot the driver, that's certainly acting in rage and "heat of the moment" and could (arguably) be justified, or at least "not in a sound mental state" or whatever legal terms you can attach to it.

Is it more of a gray area if you have to go somewhere, retrieve your gun, and then return to the scene to shoot that person? Possibly, though I think you could argue that either way.

OTOH, if you have a case which, as Spekio outlined, where not only did you go retrieve your gun but also put on gloves in order to defeat the GSR test, is that still acting within the rage of the moment? I would argue it is not. One thing to see your kids killed in front of you and then go get your gun to shoot the person responsible (though that's still debatable, IMO). But if you add "put on gloves" to that action, to me that indicates at least a shred of logic and decision-making, that you know this is wrong, and you're actively doing something that will help hide the fact you did this action from the subsequent investigation.

Because that goes from strictly "killing in rage/grief" to adding a calculating, deliberative act and one that indicates the actor knows what he or she is doing (or about to do) is wrong - otherwise why do something that would help to cover it up before you ever pulled the trigger?

Again though, that all assumes something like the father putting on gloves occurred, which again goes back to the facts of the case and why he apparently tested negative for GSR. Assuming he was the shooter, why did that occur, what actions may he have taken to ensure such a result, if any, and were those actions taken before he shot the driver or after?

[RogueIce]

I missed the edit window.

Also, FWIW, my post is also partially directed at people who said "the jury system is broken" by showing that there was some legitimate grounds for reasonable doubt and this may not have been just purely 'jurors sympathize with father of children killed by drunk driver' at play.

Article posted earlier which points out that in addition to the DNA of a third party, the lack of the murder weapon, and the father testing negative for GSR:

Anderson said tests showed a bullet fragment found in Banda’s car could have possibly come from a .357 caliber weapon and the holster could hold such a handgun.

Cammack said tests showed the bullet fragment could have also come from a 9mm handgun or a .38 caliber weapon.

So the ammunition may have been the same as that in his house...or maybe it wasn't. This was, apparently, inconclusive.

Legal experts have said the case could be difficult to prove 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.

There's also that.

OTOH, to support Spekio's thoughts as to premeditation, there is this snippet:

Another investigator, Kent Nielson, testified he found at Barajas’ house a home security system that had a missing hard drive. Investigators have said security cameras outside of Barajas’ home could possibly have captured video of someone entering or leaving the home after the crash.

But when questioned by Cammack, Nielson said he didn’t know if the security system was working on the night of the accident.

Of course that's another "we just don't know" because if it was working and if he removed the HD the night of the incident, that certainly would support premeditation and deliberate action to cover up that he was the shooter. However, if it wasn't working that night and had not been for some time for whatever reason, then it's just an unfortunate coincidence and has no bearing on the father's state of mind at the time.

[Simon_Jester]

No, it seems Havok is saying that murdering someone because they killed your children is fairly logical, if not necessarily permissible, and any sort of rehabilitative psychological therapy would be somewhat pointless because the actions aren't indicative of someone with a psychological problem to begin with.

I can easily counter this by inviting you to have children, letting me get good and drunk, and allowing me to hit them with a car. Are you 100% sure you can maintain your composure?

Can you really?

Actually, if he is right, then the answer would be "no, no I am not sure."

His point is that you don't have to be insane, in order to shoot the man who just ran over your kids with a car. You just have to experience tremendous, killing rage, which is not an unusual reaction for a human being in that situation. It's not a mental illness in the sense we normally use the term.

If your mind isn't ill to begin with, no shrink can "cure" you of a mental illness you haven't got. No therapy is worthwhile, although grief counseling might be in order.

So why the getting pissed off at him?

If the father had of had the gun with him, and used it then, it could be argued he acted in the heat of the moment, without any time for thought. The father was not acting in the heat of the moment, but with thought. He had to return home, get the gun, and come back with it. Was he in his right mind? Probably not, but many murders are committed by people not in their right mind. If this driver's father, angered by the death, gets a gun and shoots the father, should he be found not guilty too?

I just want to look at the question of whether the murder was premeditated.

I think the question in cases like this is "how long does it take to constitute premeditation?"

I've heard people on this forum claim that taking time to draw a weapon from a holster was evidence of premeditation, which is ridiculous- an intense, mind-altering emotional state like "killing rage" can easily last for the seconds required to take a weapon out of a pocket, or even out of a locked container nearby.

Personally, I think the amount of time required between the killing and the stimulus that triggered it should be proportionate to the motivation.

For example, if Bob insults Fred's wife, and Fred grabs a rock on the table in front of him, and bashes Bob's head in, that is not premeditation. Grabbing the rock took only a few seconds.

[It's second degree murder, sure, but it's not premeditated]

If Bob insults Fred's wife, and Fred goes and gets a gun and shoots Bob dead two minutes later, that is premeditation. Two minutes is long enough for a reasonably normal person to calm down from an insult, at least to the point where they stop considering murder.

But if Bob does something that would make Fred much much angrier, the anger might last longer and (as Mr. Coffee has explained) keep Bob in the 'crazy-mad' mental state long enough to go retrieve a weapon. In which case the question is, is there evidence that Fred stopped and thought, as opposed to simply acting? Going to get a weapon may be evidence of calculated thinking if the motive was "he insulted my wife." In and of itself, I'm not sure it's evidence if the motive was "he killed my children."

I would prefer people not refer to the two children being killed as 'murder', since murder requires intent to kill. This sounded like an accident. A culpable accident, but an accident

The shitpiece got wasted and decided to drive anyway, despite knowing full damned well he was impaired and had no business being behind the wheel. He made the deliberate choice to put the lives over everyone in danger and it resulted in the deaths of two children. There is no excuse for driving drunk. Like hell it wasn't murder.

No, that's not how laws work. That's how you hating drunk drivers work.

Murder is when you mean to kill someone. When you make a horribly stupid decision and people die that you didn't actually want dead, we have a name for that. We call it "homicidal negligence." There's a difference.

OTOH, if you have a case which, as Spekio outlined, where not only did you go retrieve your gun but also put on gloves in order to defeat the GSR test, is that still acting within the rage of the moment? I would argue it is not. One thing to see your kids killed in front of you and then go get your gun to shoot the person responsible (though that's still debatable, IMO). But if you add "put on gloves" to that action, to me that indicates at least a shred of logic and decision-making, that you know this is wrong, and you're actively doing something that will help hide the fact you did this action from the subsequent investigation.

Assuming you weren't already wearing the gloves, yes. Sometimes people just happen to wear gloves. Especially while pushing a car down a road in December, as this man was.

[Grumman]

I would prefer people not refer to the two children being killed as 'murder', since murder requires intent to kill.

Murder is when you mean to kill someone. When you make a horribly stupid decision and people die that you didn't actually want dead, we have a name for that. We call it "homicidal negligence." There's a difference.

That is not strictly true: depraved-heart murder. Somebody who displays a "callous disregard for human life" can be found guilty of murder even if they did not intend for somebody to die.