TX - Jose Banda, 20, slain after running over 2 boys, Alvin, 7 Dec 2012

[SCHMAE]

What a horror
I don't even know what I think except I hope I am never on either side of this situation .

 

[oh_gal]

You fail to realize the drunk driver also killed 2 people in cold blood, and driving drunk is NO excuse. In fact, it makes him guilty before the fact because he chose to drink and then he chose to drive.

If you need to blame these tragedy on something, blame it on alcohol, not guns. Without the alcohol, this probably wouldn't have happened. It seems to me people are forgetting, or shoving cause and effect out of the way. If this guy hadn't been drunk, the accident probably wouldn't have happened, and the father would not have shot him after he saw his 2 sons killed. For every action, there is a reaction. This father's reaction was understandable.

We need to put blame where it belongs, at the start, when this guy got drunk and decided to drive.

Yes, it's horrible all the way around. There are no good answers, no winners, just sadness all the way around.

They could have just as easily been hit by a little old lady with terrible night vision who shouldn't be out driving after dark. I wonder if everyone would be applauding the dad, then?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating driving drunk. What this man did was horrible, beyond tragic. So was what the dad did. That's all I'm saying. And yes, I know that if the drunk driver hadn't done what he did, then the dad wouldn't have done what he did. We could chase that circle around for hours, starting with: if the dad hadn't had two young boys out there pushing a car (surely the mom was stronger than the two of them put together?), they wouldn't have been hit.

He is certainly, without a doubt, justified in feeling a red hot burning anger after what he witnessed. He is not, however, justified in going to his house, grabbing a gun, and killing someone. If they were that close to home, why didn't he just push the car over to the side of the road himself, and have everyone walk home? Tragedy averted. But it's all about choices, isn't it? He is no better than the drunk driver, worse, possibly, because the drunk driver acted without intent (he didn't intend to go out and kill anyone), but the father acted with 100% intent when he pulled that trigger.

Again, I am not advocating driving drunk. I am not saying, "oh, poor drunk driver; bad, bad, dad." I just don't think we should be applauding this dad for what he did. He killed someone, too. Where is the outrage there?

And I have to blame it, partly, on guns, because if the dad didn't have that gun, this guy probably wouldn't be dead, in the same way that if the drunk driver didn't have a car, the two children wouldn't be dead.

 

[the seeker]

So...."being in severe shock" = ok to kill someone.
"being drunk" not ok. ??

Neither is ok, in my opinion.

It's this "eye for an eye" mentality that is scary. (the dad's, not yours).

The difference here is premeditation. The driver KNEW he was drinking and probably knew he was going to drink, and also knew and planned on driving, probably. The dad didnt know his kids were going to be mowed down....he didnt have time to think about it, he simply reacted. Im not saying he was right, but I certainly hope for some leniency in his case. He should be charged with manslaughter, nothing more. Its a crime in the heat of passion.....which, was caused by the other person's CRIMINAL behavior. I have zero sympathy for the drunk driver, but the father should face man slaughter charges, nothing more.

 

[the seeker]

They could have just as easily been hit by a little old lady with terrible night vision who shouldn't be out driving after dark. I wonder if everyone would be applauding the dad, then?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating driving drunk. What this man did was horrible, beyond tragic. So was what the dad did. That's all I'm saying. And yes, I know that if the drunk driver hadn't done what he did, then the dad wouldn't have done what he did. We could chase that circle around for hours, starting with: if the dad hadn't had two young boys out there pushing a car (surely the mom was stronger than the two of them put together?), they wouldn't have been hit.

He is certainly, without a doubt, justified in feeling a red hot burning anger after what he witnessed. He is not, however, justified in going to his house, grabbing a gun, and killing someone. If they were that close to home, why didn't he just push the car over to the side of the road himself, and have everyone walk home? Tragedy averted. But it's all about choices, isn't it? He is no better than the drunk driver, worse, possibly, because the drunk driver acted without intent (he didn't intend to go out and kill anyone), but the father acted with 100% intent when he pulled that trigger.

Again, I am not advocating driving drunk. I am not saying, "oh, poor drunk driver; bad, bad, dad." I just don't think we should be applauding this dad for what he did. He killed someone, too. Where is the outrage there?

And I have to blame it, partly, on guns, because if the dad didn't have that gun, this guy probably wouldn't be dead, in the same way that if the drunk driver didn't have a car, the two children wouldn't be dead.

This is complete BS. How come people dont think people can kill without guns? He may have strangled him, or beat him to a pulp, or stabbed him or shot him with an arrow......guns have little to do with it.

 

[oh_gal]

The difference here is premeditation. The driver KNEW he was drinking and probably knew he was going to drink, and also knew and planned on driving, probably. The dad didnt know his kids were going to be mowed down....he didnt have time to think about it, he simply reacted. Im not saying he was right, but I certainly hope for some leniency in his case. He should be charged with manslaughter, nothing more. Its a crime in the heat of passion.....which, was caused by the other person's CRIMINAL behavior. I have zero sympathy for the drunk driver, but the father should face man slaughter charges, nothing more.

Likewise, the father acted with premeditation when he went home to get the gun.

 

[oh_gal]

This is complete BS. How come people dont think people can kill without guns? He may have strangled him, or beat him to a pulp, or stabbed him or shot him with an arrow......guns have little to do with it.

You're exactly right!!! So why didn't the dad strangle him? Or grab his tire iron and whack him upside the head a few times, instead?

Because he had a gun that he preferred to use. (One that he had to actually go home to get!)

 

[oh_gal]

Just for the record, I don't have anything against guns when they are used responsibly.

I had a niece with 5 kids who was murdered by her boyfriend. They'd gone out drinking, came home, got in an argument, he didn't like what she said, so he picked a gun up off the dresser and killed her. Instantly.

Did my brother want to kill him with his bare hands? Oh, I'm sure he did. But he relied on the justice system to take care of things, knowing that it wasn't his place. And I really applaud him for that, because if you knew my brother, you'd be surprised.

I don't share this information for sympathy, empathy or any other reason, except to possibly answer the question some may be asking: "Why is this crazy dame so against guns????"

I'm not against guns by any means. When they are used responsibly.

 

[Lois Lane]

BBM

Second degree murder if convicted by a judge or jury under the letter of the law.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

(a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Manslaughter in a plea bargain or if convicted by a jury inclined not to hold him to the letter of the law and if the defense raises the issue of recklessness sufficiently for the judge to include manslaughter in the instructions to the jury.

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER.

(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

CHAPTER 8. GENERAL DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Sec. 8.01. INSANITY.

(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.

(b) The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.8.htm

Barring any unknowns as to the father's mental health, an insanity defense won't fly.

A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver; I was with them when they died.

It never occurred to me to kill the driver in retaliation. Not once. Not ever.

 

[oh_gal]

Do you think people think rationally when they are in shock?
He didn't ask to be in shock.
He didn't ask to see his children plowed over.

It's never ok to kill someone but I think it's totally understandable how this happened.

Understandable, but still against the law.

 

[keeponsearching]

I love how everyone has their own opinion on this and reading back and forth, this discussion is so unique because there are many what ifs...

I wonder how close home was, how long it took for police to arrive. The whole scene seem to take awhile to unfold, that is how I see it.

We will never know if it was a innocent driver who couldn't see, if the father would still react this way. I can't even judge or make a decision on fathers action because I don't have a time frame or I really want to know if the guy was awake.

I am really heartbroken that these two boys died. It doesn't seem fair. Always the innocent and never the guilty.

I have never once drank and drive, and I am 32, why can't others see the danger. Even in a drunk stages I never once decided to drive.

 

[Elley Mae]

about 50 yards from their Houston-area home

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nation...-murder-of-man-suspected-of-running-over-kids

 

[Sonya610]

The thing that strikes me as a bit odd is him WALKING AWAY to get the gun! I could understand if the gun was in the car but he left his wife and dying/dead kids and traumatized other children at a moment like that?

It had to be a horrific scene, wife hysterical etc...Guess maybe it was just too much so his reaction was to "kill the cause of it".

 

[oh_gal]

The thing that strikes me as a bit odd is him WALKING AWAY to get the gun! I could understand if the gun was in the car but he left his wife and dying/dead kids and traumatized other children at a moment like that?

It had to be a horrific scene, wife hysterical etc...Guess maybe it was just too much so his reaction was to "kill the cause of it".

Yeah, I thought that was strange, as well.

 

[oh_gal]

about 50 yards from their Houston-area home

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nation...-murder-of-man-suspected-of-running-over-kids

So, definitely close enough to walk home.
They have not found the weapon. Was he clear-headed enough to dispose of it? If so, there goes the "he was in shock" theory.

 

[Trident]

They could have just as easily been hit by a little old lady with terrible night vision who shouldn't be out driving after dark. I wonder if everyone would be applauding the dad, then?

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating driving drunk. What this man did was horrible, beyond tragic. So was what the dad did. That's all I'm saying. And yes, I know that if the drunk driver hadn't done what he did, then the dad wouldn't have done what he did. We could chase that circle around for hours, starting with: if the dad hadn't had two young boys out there pushing a car (surely the mom was stronger than the two of them put together?), they wouldn't have been hit.

He is certainly, without a doubt, justified in feeling a red hot burning anger after what he witnessed. He is not, however, justified in going to his house, grabbing a gun, and killing someone. If they were that close to home, why didn't he just push the car over to the side of the road himself, and have everyone walk home? Tragedy averted. But it's all about choices, isn't it? He is no better than the drunk driver, worse, possibly, because the drunk driver acted without intent (he didn't intend to go out and kill anyone), but the father acted with 100% intent when he pulled that trigger.

Again, I am not advocating driving drunk. I am not saying, "oh, poor drunk driver; bad, bad, dad." I just don't think we should be applauding this dad for what he did. He killed someone, too. Where is the outrage there?

And I have to blame it, partly, on guns, because if the dad didn't have that gun, this guy probably wouldn't be dead, in the same way that if the drunk driver didn't have a car, the two children wouldn't be dead.

BBM - but they weren't, they were killed by a drunk driver.

 

[oh_gal]

BBM - but they weren't, they were killed by a drunk driver.

True. And now he's dead. What more is left to say?

 

[Oblio]

But was the guy drunk? Has it been said that he was even at a legally defined intoxication level?

I'm with the others, one of his sons was still living when the ambulance arrived at the scene. Instead of being by his side, assuring, pleading, praying, crying, or loving, the man went home, got a weapon, and killed a man. The man found it more important to kill than to spend time with his child in his last living moments.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So...this was not a "knee-jerk", heat of the moment, grief induced action? He actually had time to go home, get his gun, and come back and shoot the guy.

Huh.

He was right by his house.
It only took "moments"

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Oh, I understand the devastation and grief he must be feeling, too.

It just scares me how he handled his devastation and grief.

What do we need a legal system for? Let's just all get guns and mete out our own justice.

You are using your logical thinking skills. Something this Dad probably didn't have the capability of at the time.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You're exactly right!!! So why didn't the dad strangle him? Or grab his tire iron and whack him upside the head a few times, instead?

Because he had a gun that he preferred to use. (One that he had to actually go home to get!)

You act like he drove across town and returned to the scene.

He was right by the house. He walked in to get it and right back out and shot the drunk driver within moments.