Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45820657]I fail to see murder being celebrated here. The most anyone has said is that its understandable in light of the situation, not a great thing to do or even a good thing.[/QUOTE] I guess I'm just seeing the winner ratings as "Woo! Way to murder that guy!"

[QUOTE=Skyward;45820665]I guess I'm just seeing the winner ratings as "Woo! Way to murder that guy!"[/QUOTE] I'm sure a lot of people see it as some sort of justice or what not. Its hard to be sympathetic to a drunk driver that killed two kids.

[QUOTE=Skyward;45820665]I guess I'm just seeing the winner ratings as "Woo! Way to murder that guy!"[/QUOTE] It's for the same reason people are rating the "American ISIS member killed" thread winner. Because the guy who died "deserved" it. You're not going to find a lot of people crying over the body of a drunkard that killed two kids.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45820676]I'm sure a lot of people see it as some sort of justice or what not. Its hard to be sympathetic to a drunk driver that killed two kids.[/QUOTE] true, but even if he had murdered the guy, he still shot a man in cold blood. Just because you can understand why he did it doesn't justify it. SH's silent majority is pro-revenge homicide it seems.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;45820698]true, but even if he had murdered the guy, he still shot a man in cold blood. Just because you can understand why he did it doesn't justify it. SH's silent majority is pro-revenge homicide it seems.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't exactly call it cold blood, the guy [I]did[/I] just kill the father's kids in a probably gruesome way (car-pedestrian fatalities aren't pretty.)

I think drunk driving should equal losing your license permanently on the first offense. There's absolutely and quite literally no excuse in the universe to DUI and this is exactly what the result is. You're driving a machine that weighs and is traveling fast enough to kill - if you're not responsible enough, you shouldn't get to do it.

I've known people who died to drunk drivers, and I've known a man who killed as a drunk driver. Nobody comes out of it without grief and regret. As easy as it is to think otherwise- and I don't blame anyone that does- but it is an accident. A stupid, selfish, easily avoidable accident, but he did not get behind that wheel with the intention of killing two children. And this man shot another person with the sole intent to kill him. I won't say he deserves forgiveness, I won't say he is not responsible, but I can't say he deserved to be murdered.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;45817865]I actually agree with the decision to acquit the man. The man lost both his young sons because of a drunk, irresponsible driver and got his revenge for losing something big in his life.[/QUOTE] I think your opinion is very strange. The justice system is supposed to be about justice (which is objective if based on {obviously subjective but still} rules of society we have today), not revenge. I can understand why the father killed him, being in that position must be literally the worst and I don't think I'd be strong enough to not attack the drunk driver if it had happened to me.. but I cannot understand why murder is acceptable after the fact if it's revenge. If he actually shot the guy, which according to his attorney he didn't... buut that doesn't change the fact that the jury 100% without a doubt thought he really did kill him and still let him go because of revenge.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;45817865]I actually agree with the decision to acquit the man. The man lost both his young sons because of a drunk, irresponsible driver and got his revenge for losing something big in his life.[/QUOTE] yeah, eye for an eye, right? He deserved to be acquitted not by lack of evidence, but because killing is a recompense for the killed, right?

I'm conflicted. If I post how I feel, I'll get yelled at. If I post opposite, I'll still be yelled at. I think I'll sit this one out.

On the one hand, murder is always awful and revenge shouldn't be encouraged. On the other hand, the father here is no threat to society. He (allegedly) snapped under extreme emotional distress. If the police had recovered evidence pointing to the father as the killer, I think voluntary manslaughter would be a better sentence than murder, as I doubt he had control over his actions at the time. But obviously I wasn't there. It's just my estimation.

[QUOTE=MR-X;45818027]So he was acquitted based on a lack of evidence really. Still a POS for killing the person, the drunk driver was still a person too though. This person had a family, hell maybe this person could have been helped. Two wrongs don't make a right, yeah what happened was horrible and I can totally understand his mindset. But he murdered someone out of rage/grief, he had no right to do what he did (I mean if he did it, but a drunk driver does not just magically have a bullet in his head after traffic collision. Specially when they where the only people on the road.) Lots of injustice in this case.[/QUOTE] If you could prove it you would have a point. But you can't, and that's the "issue". For all we know he really didn't shoot him. The evidence just isn't there, other than a motive and being present at the scene but that still isn't actual, physical evidence. If he was charged without hard evidence linking him to the crime just because everyone thought he did it, THAT would be injustice. Don't get me wrong, there is a plethora of other cases that actually do involve injustice, unfortunately our legal system has done some very questionable things but this simply isn't one of them.

First of all I want to state that I understand he was acquitted because of a lack of evidence, not because the jury thought revenge murder was justified. Second of all I want to say that if he did actually gun down the man who killed his sons I don't blame him because I'd have done the exact same thing. Only time I would blame him is if it was a genuine accident not due to negligence.

[QUOTE=Riutet;45822053]First of all I want to state that I understand he was acquitted because of a lack of evidence, not because the jury thought revenge murder was justified. Second of all I want to say that if he did actually gun down the man who killed his sons I don't blame him because I'd have done the exact same thing. Only time I would blame him is if it was a genuine accident not due to negligence.[/QUOTE] I agree completely, but as much as the shoe fits I just don't think it's fair to outright say he did it. I'm 99% sure he did too, but we'll never [i]truly[/i] know. There's always that small chance he didn't do it. You never know. Also I'm not saying that if he did do it it was right, because it's wrong, but I wouldn't blame him. His world collapsed that day, it'll never be the same again.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;45818073]The law doesn't support revenge killings. I'm sure part of this goes back to jury nullification - the idea that juries can decide whether it's just to apply the force of the law in a case.[/QUOTE] Ths this and this . That's the first thing you learn in high school crime and justice, juries exist to apply a human element and consider context. The law has nothing to do with this, seeing as there was 0 evidence anyhow

Emotion doesn't have any place in determining whether someone is guilty or not guilty.

[QUOTE=Explosions;45823910]Emotion doesn't have any place in determining whether someone is guilty or not guilty.[/QUOTE] At least take the fact that he was under extreme emotional distress into consideration. Even if he was found guilty, this guy wasn't some killer taking pleasure out of it. He snapped, as would anybody else given the circumstances.

[QUOTE=Korova;45824221]At least take the fact that he was under extreme emotional distress into consideration. Even if he was found guilty, this guy wasn't some killer taking pleasure out of it. He snapped, as would anybody else given the circumstances.[/QUOTE] Still doesnt justify killing him. Crimes in the heat of passion are still crimes. Its joked that the jury ruled that he actually was moving so fast that he struck the bullets before they struck him :v: