UPDATE: Texas Dad Acquitted in Shooting Death of Drunken Driver Who Killed 2 Sons

I wouldn't even classify this as "vigilante" justice. Avenging someone else's child's death? Yeah - that would be vigilante justice.

Avenging your own child's death? That is something so deeply personal that to term it "vigilantism" would seem inadequate.

 

Drunk drivers should have no rights. If one hits you, you should be allowed to take their car and punch them in the face. Drunk drivers are scum.

 

Good. I don't think I could have convicted him.

 

And those comments were?

 

And you sir just hit the proverbial nail on it's head...

 

The jury made the right decision.

 

Moral question...

If he did commit the crime, do you think his action is justifiable?

Personally, I say no, but I am not an eye for an eye person. Drunk idiot did a terrible thing to very innocent victims, but killing him does not solve anything.

 

Justifiable? Absolutely. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely not.

 

We live in and support a country that will go to war to "protect it's interest." Is going to war and putting thousands of lives in danger morally right...???
Is it morally right to ignore other injustices going on in other countries because we have no interest to protect there...???
Is it morally right to buy diamonds and continue to support the blood trade...???
Is it morally right to buy products that are made in other countries by children and adults working in slave type conditions...???
Is it morally right that this country has many veterans who can't take care of themselves and receive practically no help...???

When you get to judging morality you put your self and a "Rock and Glass House" situation.

 

He asked the officer if he heard about the case and let him know he was out on bond for murder. He told him to google his name and he could see the case.

Barajas said he was in a bad position and would leave his fate up to a jury. He also made a comment about it being a "crime of passion", but didn't admit to doing it. He also advised that his attorney told him he had to "intentionally or knowingly" know what he was doing.

He explained that he was knocked unconscious at some point and he had blacked out after he grabbed his son's severed leg and placed it next to his body. He also asked the officer what he would have done if he would have seen that.

From what I have heard the deputies messed up the case and there were many inconsistencies. Time frames also didn't match up. This was a strange case and it sounds like the jury got it right.

 

One of the most heartwrenching things i have read . . i could not possibly imagine

Rocket River

 

Challenging case... but separating the "not enough evidence to convict" aspect from the "dad justified in killing the drunk driver that killed his kids" aspect, as a dad I would be thinking the same as this dad (though I would prefer a baseball bat than a gun).

The part that gets challenging... at what point is taking justice in your own hands justified? I think we'd mostly agree re: rape. And torture. But at what point is it not justified? And how do you set and maintain that line?

 

Yes.
Legally: Yes (Temporary Insanity)

 

I actually think he didn't do it but he saw who did, appreciates what they did and will never rat them out.

There are a lot of people in this world that would come on that scene, realize what happened and end that drunk driver on the spot. Killing kids tends to bring out a sense of vengeance in most of us.

 

If he did do it, try and convict him guilty of breaking the law, but offer leniency for justifiable cases. Rule of law must be enforced in all cases. What the father did should be recorded as a violation. If he were to be cleared of wrong doing, it sends a message that vigilantism is okay... then you have every wacko extracting their own definition of "justice".

With that said, he should just get probation.

 

This is a weird and sloppy case. If it we're cut and dried, I would definitely expect some form of conviction.

Otherwise, I'd expect similar leniency for the father of the murdered drunk driver to put a bullet into the murdrer/father and get away with it.

Rule of Law? Old Testiment rules the day in these lands...

 

Seconded DWI laws are far to lax. There's way to many cases of losers with multiple DWIs until they finally kill someone.

 

Texas justice!

 

Legally it sounds like there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict him. The evidence against him is circumstantial and from my understanding is that prosecutors are usually uneasy about circumstantial evidence.

Morally assuming Barajas did actually kill the driver is a much more difficult question. I would fall back to what I've said in other threads any action you have to weigh the risk for Barajas given the possibility that he could get tried and convicted would that leave things better for his family since they've not only lost his sons but him.

I've never been in that type of situation and hope I never am in it so I honestly don't know what I would do.

 

That is awful and I'm glad they caught the guy and you got at least some measure of justice seeing him convicted and sent to prison.