Jury Finds Texas Man Not Guilty in Shooting Death of Drunk Driver Who Killed Two Sons

A jury returned a verdict of not guilty today for a Texas father accused of the shooting death of a drunk driver who killed his two sons. David Barajas was accused of fatally shooting 20-year-old Jose Banda in December 2012 after Banda plowed into a vehicle that Barajas and his two sons had been pushing on a rural road in Alvin, about 30 miles southeast of Houston. The Barajas family broke into tears in the courtroom today while Jose Banda's family sat in stunned belief. "I am relieved but still in pain. My two boys are dead and nothing will bring them back," Barajas said in a post decision news conference

Source

I applaud the jury in this case. There's no question as to whether or not he killed the guy, and no question as to whether or not it was premeditated, but they acquitted him anyway.

I say good going, this scumbag gang-banging thug deserved to die and I doubt that would've happened if the father had left it up to our money driven injustice system.

Fine... I'll go first.

I agree that justice was served here. I know I am the devil incarnate for saying it and I'm ok with that. While I do not agree with murder, these were extreme extenuating circumstances and I am glad that the jury was able to see that and hand down the proper verdict.

Flame away. I'm still going to be glad that this family will not suffer further loss from this tragedy and I'll not apologize for it.

It's Texas....

He will probably get a medal.

Ayep...one good murder deserves another....its a tried and true axiom....in Texas......

Well, what's worse?
A: Letting a man go who is guilty of shooting a criminal that just killed two children
B: Sending an innocent man to prison for a murder he didn't commit after he just lost his two sons

Seems like a pretty obvious decision to make. And just to remind everyone here, there's no proof that Barajas shot Banda. There's not even a murder weapon. For all we know, someone else shot Banda before he got in his car and fled prior to hitting the kids.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I agree.

I can't say I would have done much differently; even with having only 1 child.

The life and worth of those children wasn't considered by offender that day...he cashed that "check".

Signed,

Dad

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Part of me feels like a hypocrite, because I'm totally against violence. But a bigger part of me realizes that I probably would've done the same thing. I bet the fact that he was going to go to jail ran through this guys head before pulling the trigger, and that's something he was willing to accept.

originally posted by: trollz
Well, what's worse?
A: Letting a man go who is guilty of shooting a criminal that just killed two children
B: Sending an innocent man to prison for a murder he didn't commit after he just lost his two sons

Wait, I can't find anywhere where it says if he did it or not. So, did this guy kill the other guy because he killed his sons. Or did he really have nothing to do with it???

EDIT. Ok, Never mind, I found some more info on this case myself. What a weird case. According to what I read they didn't have any hard evidence that he actually shot this guy though. Even though the alternative is that somehow some other random person came and shot him which is even crazier and harder to believe. Weird man, just weird....

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: trollz
Well, what's worse?
A: Letting a man go who is guilty of shooting a criminal that just killed two children
B: Sending an innocent man to prison for a murder he didn't commit after he just lost his two sons

Wait, I can't find anywhere where it says if he did it or not. So, did this guy kill the other guy because he killed his sons. Or did he really have nothing to do with it???

Well Barajas denied shooting Banda, hence the trial. Due to the circumstances, Barajas was the primary suspect and charged accordingly, but there's no proof that he did it.
Now... He might have done it. But he also might be innocent, which is why he was found not guilty... Because it can't be proven that he IS guilty. Until someone who knows what happens comes forward, or police find new information, we just won't know.

originally posted by: TiedDestructor
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I agree.

I can't say I would have done much differently; even with having only 1 child.

The life and worth of those children wasn't considered by offender that day...he cashed that "check".

Signed,

Dad

My post below is to you as well TD. From a mother to a dad... I agree. I may feel guilty for agreeing for a while, but I can not pass judgement or blame for what this man has done. I am human and can not say that I would have resisted the urge myself.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Part of me feels like a hypocrite, because I'm totally against violence. But a bigger part of me realizes that I probably would've done the same thing. I bet the fact that he was going to go to jail ran through this guys head before pulling the trigger, and that's something he was willing to accept.

I wrestle with those same emotions whenever anything like this comes up. Seriously. I am against murder and I do think it's wrong to take another's life, but I am also a mother. I have also lost a child. I know the rage and emotions that come with that even though my loss was not one of violence. It's blinding and all consuming and I can not blame the father for what he did. Justice is not one size fits all. We see it time and time again. It's nice to see it come out on the side of good on occasion.

a reply to: trollz

He would've been convicted if it wasn't for the fact that his boys were just killed by this guy. There was plenty enough evidence to prove that he was the one who did it.

There's no way he would've walked had his car been empty. He had motive, his blood was found inside the drunk driver's vehicle, witnesses placed him at the scene when the gunshot was heard, and he had ammunition in his house that matched the bullet used.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: trollz

He would've been convicted if it wasn't for the fact that his boys were just killed by this guy. There was plenty enough evidence to prove that he was the one who did it.

There's no way he would've walked had his car been empty.

Not according to what I have just read. That was the problem. They didn't have any hard evidence. No gunpowder on him. No eyewitness. Just some blood and a bullet fragment. No Gun. Nothing.

a reply to: mOjOm

I saw some discussion and there was discussion of lack of evidence and jury nullification. But it seemed beyond a reasonable was not there either.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: mOjOm

I saw some discussion and there was discussion of lack of evidence and jury nullification. But it seemed beyond a reasonable was not there either.

There was concern of Jury sympathy in this case. Which I think is fairly understood. After all, we can imagine what pain you would feel if you were this guy and just lost your two sons and all.

However, you're correct. There was some serious lack of evidence to prove anything. With no Proof, we are Innocent until Proven Guilty. At least that is how it's supposed to be.

Here is a good write up on the lack of evidence.
Lawyer: No evidence tied to drunken driver’s death

Hell yeah this is wonderful news

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: trollz

He would've been convicted if it wasn't for the fact that his boys were just killed by this guy. There was plenty enough evidence to prove that he was the one who did it.

There's no way he would've walked had his car been empty. He had motive, his blood was found inside the drunk driver's vehicle, witnesses placed him at the scene when the gunshot was heard, and he had ammunition in his house that matched the bullet used.

I think this was likely a case of "We looked realllllly hard for more evidence but shucks... We couldn't find none." It wouldn't be the first time it's happened and it certainly wouldn't be the last. There are "sympathetic" officers and detectives still to be found out there. Sometimes they overlook things...

a reply to: mOjOm

Do you think he killed him? Who leaves the scene of an accident where one of their kids is dead and their wife is trying to save the other kid, only to walk to their house and back?

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: mOjOm

Do you think he killed him? Who leaves the scene of an accident where one of their kids is dead and their wife is trying to save the other kid, only to walk to their house and back?

Based on the situation, it seems more likely that Barajas is guilty than innocent. But this is the United States, and at least the freedoms we have left include the ability to avoid prison without absolute proof of guilt. If we imprisoned everyone just because they were probably guilty of their accused crime, there'd be a huge amount of innocent people in prison.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: mOjOm

Do you think he killed him? Who leaves the scene of an accident where one of their kids is dead and their wife is trying to save the other kid, only to walk to their house and back?

I don't know if he killed him or not.

But he was shot by someone who apparently had to shoot him sometime between him wrecking into the back of this guys car and whenever the police arrived, if I am reading the story correctly.

This guy just lost his two kids in this and is obviously upset over it. (Not saying he did it though) Plus nobody else saw any shooter. So does that mean everyone left at some point and some random person came in and shot this guy??

We should all take revenge this way. It will be a wonderful world.


Stupid.