It turns out that killing people who you think need a good killing is a great way to gain public support. First, it was the moonbats who signed up in droves on Facebook and Twitter to support Christopher Dorner's murderous quest to "clear his name." As the demented ex-cop and navy seal holed up right under the LAPD's nose, celebrities, Marxists, and militants within the Nation of Islam openly empathized with Dorner's particular kind of madness. People were outraged by the open support for Dorner. But tell me, why is the misguided support for David Barajas, who killed a man in cold blood for no other reason than to get revenge any different ?
I call your attention to section (a) paragraph (2) of the Texas Penal Code, which reads:
(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.
Let's look at the facts. After the truck that he and his two boys were pushing was struck from behind, Barajas left the scene. He left his two boys bleeding to death on the side of the road. He left his wife, their eight-year-old daughter and their infant daughter at he scene. He walked a few yards to his home, got his gun, returned to the scene where one of his sons lays lifeless. Instead of tending to any member of his family, he goes to the other driver's vehicle and shoots him once in the head.
So far, to a person, every man-on-the-street type the media has interviewed has said the same thing. "I would have done the same thing myself." Really?
Your children are dying. This is the last time you will be together in this world...and you're going to leave to get a gun? And let's say, just for argument's sake that you would've been so traumatized that you would have left to get a gun. Am I to believe that after being in the home you share with the people laying splattered in the road, you would still rather kill the other driver than say good-bye?
Of course, the justification most people give for empathizing with Barajas is that the other driver was drunk. How did Barajas know that? He didn't. For all he knew, the person behind the wheel was a 16-year-old cheerleader who dropped her cell phone. So, I ask you, if Barajas had shot some popular kid from a well-known family, would those of you who claim you would have reacted the same way still support him? Doubtful.
While the victim's alcohol issues may have mattered if he were on trial for killing the Barajas children,it doesn't have the first thing to do with getting shot in the head by someone so bent on revenge that he can't even stop to bid his boys safe passage to the other side.
Read the law closely. To successfully claim he acted with sudden passion, Barajas is going to have to show that when he shot the other driver, he wasn't shooting him because what had happened previously (the crash), but that he was reacting to something that happened after he returned to the scene. So far, all the witnesses say Barajas went straight from his home to the victim's car. This is murder in the first degree, straight up. And I would not have done the same thing Barajas did. No reasonable person would have.
Subscribe to my feed by clicking on the links above this article or directly below it and receive updates about the issues that matter most to educated conservatives.
Are you a conservative blogger, writer or commentator? Join the most popular group for conservative writers on LinkedIn.
If you're interested in becoming an Examiner and earning some extra money, follow this link to get started. Examiner.com is a great place for conservatives to frame the conversation on American values.