Father Acquitted for Revenge Execution of his Sons' DUI Killer

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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 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.

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 victim’s 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

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

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
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

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,750
9,706
113
Washington DC
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

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
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/M...erPublications/documents/underTheScope8-1.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
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
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.

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/M...erPublications/documents/underTheScope8-1.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.