Dunno what the deal would be in TX about lesser, included charges. Doesn't seem far-fetched that many in a jury might not want a murder charge.

If I had to find it murder or nothing, I'd pick "nothing." I'd be open to a lesser charge of manslaughter. I think that is possible most places.

Society must be protected so my mind says that the shooter must be punished. My heart would probably go with the shoot the drunk driver sob solution that the poor father ended up with. What a tragedy, though.

Agreed :yep:

Whenever firepower trumps the law you no longer have a society, you have anarchy. This father merely created more victims and did not even allow for due process to run its course.

What happened was terrible and as a father I can understand but never condone vigilantism without legal consequences. I hope he gets death but instead he'll be acquitted, become a hero and make a gazillion bucks on the daytime talkshow circuit and for selling his version of events as the movie of the week.

I disagree.

His actions were against the law. However, the law was created to protect the innocent. The law failed - resulting in the death of his two sons. An impotent law is no law at all.

Charge him for murder. In the US - he would likely go free. The reason - jury nullification. If the law failed him and his family - why should it stand to further punish him and his family for its own failure.

This will be a real test of the jury. Will they rule emotionally or logically?

Emotionally it may seem right to let him off
Logically, regardless of the intent, he may have committed a crime.

Two items what will work against him

1. Witness saw him leave the truck (which was about 150 yards from his home) and then return to the scene of the accident when witness say they heard a gun shot
2. The police have not been able to locate the gun

That will make the defense of "in the heat of passion" a little harder to support. Especially the ditching of the gun.

Unlike others, I would NOT like to be on this jury. The jury will be instructed to apply the law to the case, not their emotions.

What David Barajas did was wrong (assuming that he is guilty). Understandable and even sympathetic, but wrong.

No, I am very glad I will not be on this jury. I don't see this having anything close to a happy ending.

Reminds me of the guy who plugged his child's rapist in the head at an airport with a .38.


All he got was probation.

Here:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f5_1281036313

He got a suspended sentence and 5 years probation with community service and still has a felony record.

At least legally, he won't able to get a gun, for what ever that is worth these days.

How did the law fail? He never had the chance to be subjected to it! Laws don't stop behavior - they provide punishment for it.

Everyone, even those we know are guilty, is entitled to due process. Vigilantism undermines one of the core tenets of our justice system - the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Citizens don't have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. That's anarchy.

Technically, jury nullification would never play into it. Jury nullification is a way of expressing disagreement with a law by refusing to convict someone guilty of breaking said law on the grounds that it should never have been put on the books in the first place. I really doubt anyone is going to say that the law against murder is a bad one.

Refusing to convict someone ≠ jury nullification.

If the DUI guy had ever had a previous DUI then the law failed. Serial DUI is the norm for many. Getting blind drunk and starting the car is no different than taking your rifle outside and firing in a random direction. 99.9999% of the time the bullet will hit dirt or a tree, or even a house, only rarely will it find a human.

The two are no different.

In 2010 he was convicted of a felony. Any idea what the original charges were and what his conviction was for? I will give you a hint - it had to do with operating a motor vehicle.....

I don't say that citizens do have that right. We are not talking about joe blow citizen though are we - we are talking about one of the victims of the crime....

Thankfully - not every case is decided purely on the "technicals". A jury can choose to acquit using the rationale that while the law itself is good - it is being misapplied or applied in error. That also is jury nullification.

(emphasis in Bold added)

Source: Doug Linder, School of Law - University of Michigan - Kansas City
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ification.html

Since people are talking of breaking the law canceling out breaking the law then the father is responsible for the drunk driver hitting his car.
He failed to follow the laws of the road concerning creating a traffic hazard with a broken down vehicle.

Ah, I did not see that. My bad, then.

I still stand by the fact that allowing revenge killings is a bad thing to do. Even by victims.

valid.
Walk the rest of the path home, away from the road instead (paralell 10 feet?) of exposing himself and his kids.

Not the best decision. But it is not breaking the law for the jury to decide whatever they like, for whatever reason they like, a jury is remarkably powerful in its narrow area.