Father Acquitted for Revenge Execution of his Sons' DUI Killer


Locutus
#1



David Barajas and Josť Banda Jr.


A Texas father was found not guilty Wednesday of gunning down the man who killed his young sons in a drunken-driving accident. It took the jury three hours to acquit David Barajas, who was charged in the shooting death of 20-year-old Jose Banda Jr. in December 2012. "I thank God. This has been hard on me and my family," Barajas told reporters. "It's been a lot of weight lifted but I'm still very hurt."

An intoxicated Banda struck Barajas and his two children while they pushed the family’s disabled truck down a road, just 50 yards away from their home in Alvin, south of Houston. Barajas’ children — David, 12, and Caleb, 11 — were killed. Amid the chaos, authorities charged, Barajas went home, retrieved a gun and went back to the wreckage to shoot Banda in the head. But investigators never recovered a gun and didn't have an eyewitness to the shooting. Barajas’ attorney, Sam Cammack, said his client’s only focus the night of the crash was trying to save his sons’ lives and that someone else killed Banda.

The prosecutor Jeri Yenne said she had no regrets about bringing charges. "We believe that Mr. Barajas committed the crime and we also know the jury did not believe that beyond a reasonable doubt. We respect that," she said.



Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons - NBC News (external - login to view)
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#2
Don't blame him. Glad he got off.
 
QuebecCanadian
+2
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

Don't blame him. Glad he got off.

He was acquitted because they had no proof. IF he did it, and I would not have a hard time believing he did then he was wrong. Killing Banda was murder.
 
Goober
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by QuebecCanadianView Post

He was acquitted because they had no proof. IF he did it, and I would not have a hard time believing he did then he was wrong. Killing Banda was murder.

Do you have children?
 
damngrumpy
+3
#5  Top Rated Post
I am not the least bit happy this is serious. No they had no proof that is the only reason.
Couldn't find the weapon convenient. Soon we will adopt revenge killings just like the
Middle East and soon after we wouldn't be safe sleeping in our own beds.
Oh and about what happened? I had a brother killed by a drunk driver I also have a
grandson who was disabled for life hit by a drunk driver when he was 8. Yup I know
how it feels alright and taking the law into your own hands is not an answer in fact it
can make the future even worse. I don't think they pressed this as hard as they might.
Of course where it happened has a lot to do with it too
 
Goober
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I am not the least bit happy this is serious. No they had no proof that is the only reason.
Couldn't find the weapon convenient. Soon we will adopt revenge killings just like the
Middle East and soon after we wouldn't be safe sleeping in our own beds.
Oh and about what happened? I had a brother killed by a drunk driver I also have a
grandson who was disabled for life hit by a drunk driver when he was 8. Yup I know
how it feels alright and taking the law into your own hands is not an answer in fact it
can make the future even worse. I don't think they pressed this as hard as they might.
Of course where it happened has a lot to do with it too

Assumptions and personal bias, no evidence and again no evidence.
No trace on him of shooting a gun. No residue what so ever.
 
WLDB
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you have children?

Having children doesnt change the fact that whoever did shoot the guy committed murder. As was noted above, he was found not guilty because there wasnt evidence, not because the jury thought he did it and that it was ok.
 
QuebecCanadian
+3
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you have children?

3 daughters. I also have zero tolerance for drunks.

But going home and getting a shotgun to blow a drunk`s brains out makes him a different kind of psycho. The guy that beat the kid trying to molest his son? Yes! That I get. Heat of the moment, raw emotion. Going home to get a gun? No.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you have children?

Have you ever driven drunk?
 
SLM
#9
This was a murder, plain and simple. I can possibly understand the anger that would drive someone to such an act, not that I'd commit it myself, but on a certain level I can understand taking out the person who killed your children. But understanding it doesn't make it okay, nor does it make it not murder. I think that when it comes to your kids you do what you feel you have to do but stand up and take your medicine for it.
 
Goober
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Having children doesnt change the fact that whoever did shoot the guy committed murder. As was noted above, he was found not guilty because there wasnt evidence, not because the jury thought he did it and that it was ok.

Yes it does. people lose it. Again no evidence just assumption.
 
QuebecCanadian
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Assumptions and personal bias, no evidence and again no evidence.
No trace on him of shooting a gun. No residue what so ever.

The title of this thread implies what we all think. Even you because you believe it would be justified.
 
wulfie68
#12
As a father, this type of scenario is my worst nightmare. I can see the father being insane with grief and doing it.

My wife worked with police for a couple years, and says this sounds like the cops probably agreed with the father's actions and didn't want this guy charged. They could do a token search and not find a weapon or witnesses, and if the father was distraught and possibly covered in his sons' blood, that would be an easy excuse for not doing gunpowder residue checks.

Yes, all of the above is theory and supposition, but who will ever know the truth now, unless someone else really did do it and comes forward/is found out somewhere down the road?

Now am I comfortable with someone taking the law into his own hands like this? No. But do I blame him? Its very hard to.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by QuebecCanadianView Post

He was acquitted because they had no proof. IF he did it, and I would not have a hard time believing he did then he was wrong. Killing Banda was murder.

I am aware of why he was acquitted. I am happy he was. IMHO Justifiable Homicide. Also I think you could argue temporary insanity. Like I said, glad he got off.

ETA: This assumes he actually did do it. Seems odd if he did they would not find the weapon. Also seems odd he would be able to leave the scene and return unnoticed (no witnesses) and also dispose of the firearm.
Last edited by IdRatherBeSkiing; Aug 28th, 2014 at 09:29 PM..Reason: Hi Praxius
 
taxslave
#14
Either way justice was served.
 
Praxius
#15
Even if he did shoot the guy..... Good. Everybody who drinks and drives should be fk'n shot. Everybody knows by now you just don't do it, yet some still do it anyways, then try to make excuses when they're caught or kill someone, and what's worse is that many still don't get it and do it again and again.


Someone shot and killed the drunk driver and would be considered murder? Sure is.... And operating a vehicle while under the influence and killing two kids should also be considered murder.


Killing them wasn't intentional?


It was intentional to get drunk.


It was intentional to drive while drunk.


And it was intentional to do all of this being fully aware that it's illegal to drive drunk, being aware of the risks and doing it anyways


No sympathy.
 
BaalsTears
+1
#16
If the father didn't kill the drunken driver he probably has a good idea who did.
 
QuebecCanadian
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

Even if he did shoot the guy..... Good. Everybody who drinks and drives should be fk'n shot. Everybody knows by now you just don't do it, yet some still do it anyways, then try to make excuses when they're caught or kill someone, and what's worse is that many still don't get it and do it again and again.


Someone shot and killed the drunk driver and would be considered murder? Sure is.... And operating a vehicle while under the influence and killing two kids should also be considered murder.


Killing them wasn't intentional?


It was intentional to get drunk.


It was intentional to drive while drunk.


And it was intentional to do all of this being fully aware that it's illegal to drive drunk, being aware of the risks and doing it anyways


No sympathy.

Agree 100%. 2 murderers.
 
Goober
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by QuebecCanadianView Post

The title of this thread implies what we all think. Even you because you believe it would be justified.

The title means squat. Did everyone on this Thread, excepting myself. PM each other and agree on the OP title.
Where did I justify it?

Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

If the father didn't kill the drunken driver he probably has a good idea who did.

Exactly, someone else could have done this.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#19
This isn't jury nullification, it's lack of evidence. Got no problem with that. The state has to prove its case. No gun, no witnesses, sounds like the state was going on motivation alone.
 
QuebecCanadian
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The title means squat. Did everyone on this Thread, excepting myself. PM each other and agree on the OP title.
Where did I justify it?



Exactly, someone else could have done this.

When you asked me if I have children you implied that I would be justified in doing the same thing. If I read that wrong, my bad.
 
Goober
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by QuebecCanadianView Post

When you asked me if I have children you implied that I would be justified in doing the same thing. If I read that wrong, my bad.

Not an issue I was just asking if you had children t go to a point listed in this post.
I in now way justified this murder.

If this fellow did commit there were grounds for mental distress is all I can say, does not justify, but can be grounds for dismissal.
This is an old case that I followed off and on.

Police were on scene quickly.
No residue as mentioned. No blood splatter and on and on.
Reasonable doubt is all that is needed to acquit.
From the 1st link
An intoxicated Banda struck Barajas and his two children while they pushed the familyís disabled truck down a road, just 50 yards away from their home in Alvin, south of Houston. Barajasí children ó David, 12, and Caleb, 11 ó were killed. Amid the chaos, authorities charged, Barajas went home, retrieved a gun and went back to the wreckage to shoot Banda in the head. But investigators never recovered a gun and didn't have an eyewitness to the shooting. Barajasí attorney, Sam Cammack, said his clientís only focus the night of the crash was trying to save his sonsí lives and that someone else killed Banda.

From the link embedded in the 1st link
During opening statements, prosecutors told the jury that the evidence will show Barajas was seen confronting Banda right after the accident that killed his two sons, and that witnesses saw him approaching the victimís vehicle right before they heard a bang.

Trial of Texas father accused of shooting driver who killed 2 sons raises legal, moral issues | Fox News (external - login to view)

Barajas' trial is set to begin Monday in a case with many complexities: No weapon was recovered, no witnesses identified him as the shooter and many in Barajas' community have strongly sympathized with him, with some saying they might have taken the law into their own hands if faced with a similar situation.

Witnesses have identified Barajas as the person who approached the vehicle before the shooting, Sanders said. And other witnesses said there was a man opening fire but none could identify Barajas as that person. Investigators never found the weapon, and gunshot residue tests done on Barajas came back negative.
Legal experts acknowledge prosecutors could face a greater challenge than simply proving who committed the shooting, similar to another Texas case from 2012 in which a grand jury declined to indict a father who killed a man who molested his child.
 
SLM
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Exactly, someone else could have done this.

Unless I've been completely mistaken all these years, that's all you need for an acquittal....reasonable doubt.

Odds are he did do it though. Wrong choice for the right reasons but still a wrong choice.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Unless I've been completely mistaken all these years, that's all you need for an acquittal....reasonable doubt.

Odds are he did do it though. Wrong choice for the right reasons but still a wrong choice.

As you so rightly point out, "odds are" ain't enough for a conviction. Glad there's a couple of folks on here that recognise that.
 
Goober
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Unless I've been completely mistaken all these years, that's all you need for an acquittal....reasonable doubt.

Odds are he did do it though. Wrong choice for the right reasons but still a wrong choice.

The 1st account the Police had witnesses, then they did not, then there were conflicting accounts.
No gun residue, no blood and other parts from the shot on the accused.
Is it possible someone else on/arriving at the scene shot that fellow?


https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MS...heScope8-1.pdf
GSR testing involves identifying the
presence of microscopic particles consisting
of lead, barium, and antimony. These GSR
particles are the residue that is produced from
the components present in the primer of a
cartridge. When the firearm is discharged,
these particles are ejected from the cylinder
gaps, ejector ports, and the end of the barrel,
resulting in a plume of residue in the air around
the gun. This residue can land on nearby
surfaces and objects, including the hands of
the shooter. To determine if GSR could be
present, GSR kits are collected by touching
unique adhesive stubs to the hands of
individuals suspected of firing a weapon. The
Trace evidence section at the General
Headquarters Lab in Jefferson City analyzes
the adhesive stubs for GSR using a scanning
electron microscope (SEM), issues reports on
the findings, and testifies in court
 
Colpy
#25
The guy had no gun powder residue on him.

Case closed.
 
SLM
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

As you so rightly point out, "odds are" ain't enough for a conviction. Glad there's a couple of folks on here that recognise that.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The 1st account the Police had witnesses, then they did not, then there were conflicting accounts.
No gun residue, no blood and other parts from the shot on the accused.
Is it possible someone else on/arriving at the scene shot that fellow?


https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MS...heScope8-1.pdf
GSR testing involves identifying the
presence of microscopic particles consisting
of lead, barium, and antimony. These GSR
particles are the residue that is produced from
the components present in the primer of a
cartridge. When the firearm is discharged,
these particles are ejected from the cylinder
gaps, ejector ports, and the end of the barrel,
resulting in a plume of residue in the air around
the gun. This residue can land on nearby
surfaces and objects, including the hands of
the shooter. To determine if GSR could be
present, GSR kits are collected by touching
unique adhesive stubs to the hands of
individuals suspected of firing a weapon. The
Trace evidence section at the General
Headquarters Lab in Jefferson City analyzes
the adhesive stubs for GSR using a scanning
electron microscope (SEM), issues reports on
the findings, and testifies in court

We can speculate all we want to, we just can't convict him.

I can't honestly envision a truly plausible scenario where this guy didn't commit the act. But I can completely understand why they couldn't convict him.

Hell I'm absolutely certain OJ did it too, doesn't mean a damn thing though. Lol.
 

Similar Threads

22
Sons and Daughters
by Sal | Mar 10th, 2013
no new posts