16-Year-Old Drunk Driver Who Killed Four Escapes Jail — Because He Is Rich!

signalmankenneth said:
http://www.alternet.org/print/news-...-who-killed-four-escapes-jail-because-he-rich

affluenza.jpg
Click to expand...

If you get your Marxist talking points from AlterNet; you just might be an idiot.

In your case, it would be moron.
 
signalmankenneth said:


This young man got probation instead of 20 years because of the way he was raised by his wealthy parents. Gosh, in that case over 80% of all prisoners were raised in abusive homes and they didn’t get a light sentence. (Affluenza!) Bottom line is without the money he would be doing 20 years!
Click to expand...


Wrong again shit-for-brains. It had a lot to do with being 16. But you're a moron who is permanently stuck on stupid and think that poor 16 year olds never committed crimes and got the same treatment...because you really are THAT incredibly stupid.
 
He drove shit faced drunk at 30 miles over the speed limit. That was not an accident. According to his lawyer's "defense" he's used to getting whatever he wants and so it is very likely he will act with negligent and callous disregard of other's lives in the future. He should be incarcerated for a term but I would have him paying restitution to his victim's families for 20 years.

I don't see that this is due to a high priced legal defense. His defense was stupid and if anything works against him to show that he is continuing threat. The judge is the problem.
 
NOVA said:
Well, which is it.....

over 80% of all prisoners were raised in abusive homes...? Does that prove these homes were all poor ? Or all wealthy ?

Can you describe the way he was raised that caused him to get probation...

Do people from abusive home get heavier prison terms ?

Was "this young man"...raised by wealthy parents in an abusive home or not....and what the fuck does it have to do with being poor or wealthy ?

wtf is you point ?
Click to expand...

You're talking to an idiot; don't expect anything less than the never ending circle of stupidity.
 
Taft2016 said:
There's an easy solution to this problem. Like the UK nationalized the health profession, we just nationalize the legal profession.

No more private practice of law. All attorneys will work for the state or national governments. When a case is filed in court an attorney is selected from a pool on a rotation basis. Next attorney up in the rotation represents the defendant, then the next attorney up represents the plaintiff/prosecutor. This will be done for both civil and criminal cases.

Benefits include:

*No more rich guilty people getting off by hiring high-powered attorneys
*No more rich corporations winning with a flock of high-powered attorneys when being sued for negligence by a poor Joe 6 Pack.

Just like rich people do not deserve better health care, they do not deserve better legal representation. Equality for all, and it can be achieved by government action.

[/sarcasm off]
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!! Brilliant idea...after all, most are Liberals who care more than anyone else on the planet right?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
He drove shit faced drunk at 30 miles over the speed limit. That was not an accident. According to his lawyer's "defense" he's used to getting whatever he wants and so it is very likely he will act with negligent and callous disregard of other's lives in the future. He should be incarcerated for a term but I would have him paying restitution to his victim's families for 20 years.

I don't see that this is due to a high priced legal defense. His defense was stupid and if anything works against him to show that he is continuing threat. The judge is the problem.
Click to expand...

It's a fake story from AlterNet. No lawyer uses that as a defense...it is made up political nonsense that AlterNet is known for in their Marxist crusade for equal outcomes for all.
 
LOL Sandyhook said:
mens rea you guys.

I don't believe in punishing people for accidents.

Putting someone in jail isn't going to bring the dead back.

A treatment center is what he and other drunk drivers need. Not punitive vengeful punishment.

Put some good into the world, don't cause more misery.

This is the same choice my family made when my grandmother was killed. The guy was just a kid, we knew it was a huge fuck up and an accident, and we knew that nothing was going to bring her back. better try to get as much good out of the situation as possible.

We walk the walk and talk the talk.

the 20 year sentence hanging over this guys head was fucking absurd.

When I used to work in the court system I saw the trial of a woman who was at a .13 alcohol level. She killed her own daughter when she and their family went on a joy ride and rolled their minivan. She was given TWO YEARS. That's IT! The judge basically said "welp, you killed your kid, don't think any punishment could be as bad as that." The prosecutor even then was only asking for 5-7.

That's the way it should be. Not this bullshit petty vengeance game. Drunk drivers aren't psychopaths that are just going to go around killing people. You can give them treatment and they'll be able to contribute to society in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...
The kid was committing crimes: underage drinking, speeding and driving drunk. And, he has previous offenses, i.e. "a year ago Couch, then 15, was found parked in a pickup truck with a drunk, unconscious and near-naked 14-year-old girl, but faced no discipline beyond a ticket.." He was also underage driving at age 13. You can't discount those factors.

Justice was denied here.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/12/10/5408563/teen-sentenced-to-10-years-probation.html?rh=1

Yhttp://www.star-telegram.com/2013/12/10/5408563/teen-sentenced-to-10-years-probation.html?rh=1ou should change your handle.
Click to expand...

If you think the story on the Telegram mirrors how it was reported on AlterNet, perhaps it is YOU who needs a new handle.

Did you read the story? He comes from a dysfunctional family with divorced parents, typical of juvenile criminals, he has the emotional intelligence of a 12 year old and the judge indicated that if she gave him 20 years, he would be out in two.

Sorry, this isn't a case of wealth and priveledge the Marxist dimwits wish to make this. Perhaps if you had actually read the story, you could have realized the difference.
 
Truth Detector said:
If you think the story on the Telegram mirrors how it was reported on AlterNet, perhaps it is YOU who needs a new handle.

Did you read the story? He comes from a dysfunctional family with divorced parents, typical of juvenile criminals, he has the emotional intelligence of a 12 year old and the judge indicated that if she gave him 20 years, he would be out in two.

Sorry, this isn't a case of wealth and priveledge the Marxist dimwits wish to make this. Perhaps if you had actually read the story, you could have realized the difference.
Click to expand...

Do you not know what was meant by handle?

There is nothing in the Telegram article that proves the facts from alternet were misreported. It confirms that his defense claimed he was raised to believe that he could repair his mistakes with money.

I stated, that I did not see that it was due to high priced defense. Still the defense did argue that his wealth had spoiled him. If that's the case then we can fix that pretty easily.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Do you not know what was meant by handle?

There is nothing in the Telegram article that proves the facts from alternet were misreported. It confirms that his defense claimed he was raised to believe that he could repair his mistakes with money.

I stated, that I did not see that it was due to high priced defense. Still the defense did argue that his wealth had spoiled him. If that's the case then we can fix that pretty easily.
Click to expand...

Again, had you read both stories, one was about wealth and privilege claiming these were the reasons he got off scot free, which he didn't; the other, a factual story about a very dysfunctional family and a jurist who didn't want him to get off scot free.

I know you are having difficulty distinguishing the vast difference between the fabricated Marxist piece and real journalism, which is why I am the Truth Detector and you are just another poorly informed Liberal.

;)
 
Truth Detector said:
Again, had you read both stories, one was about wealth and privilege claiming these were the reasons he got off scot free, which he didn't; the other, a factual story about a very dysfunctional family and a jurist who didn't want him to get off scot free.

I know you are having difficulty distinguishing the vast difference between the fabricated Marxist piece and real journalism, which is why I am the Truth Detector and you are just another poorly informed Liberal.

;)
Click to expand...

You are having difficulty identifying anything that was fabricated. You said it was a "fake story" and "made up political nonsense." What fact is made up?

Nowhere in the alternet story is anything stated about "scot free" and it does state the judge "sentenced him to a decade of probation." The title states he escaped jail, which is true.

The alternet story says that his defense was that "his rich parents spoiled him," which is again confirmed by the Star Telegram story.

There is nothing in the alternet story that is misleading in any material way. My original comments are unchanged.
 
Truth Detector said:
BINGO!!!! Brilliant idea...after all, most are Liberals who care more than anyone else on the planet right?
Click to expand...

Thanks!

What could possibly provide more "equal protection under the law"? While expanding government at the same time? And punishing the wealthy?

Sounds like it would be a "win-win-win!" for the libs.

Wonder what the stumbling block is....?
 
Taft2016 said:
Thanks!

What could possibly provide more "equal protection under the law"? While expanding government at the same time? And punishing the wealthy?

Sounds like it would be a "win-win-win!" for the libs.

Wonder what the stumbling block is....?
Click to expand...

It would also have a sort of built-in tort reform. Since lawyers would now be civil servants working for the government, they wouldn't get greedy and look for inflated settlements in civil cases, of which they'd walk away with 50% of if they were still in private practice.

And all of the settlement money would go to the plaintiff.

And the loser wouldn't have to pay the settlement AND a huge lawyer fee.

This tort reform would also lower health care costs, and prevent defensive medicine.

So what's the stumbling block?
 
LOL Sandyhook said:
I already said why -_-

People, in addressing unfairness, always want to bring people down, rather than rise people up. These people (people like ken) are jealous, social parasites. Thieves of money, production, and industry, the useless unwashed masses being unable to contribute something meaningful, need to make everyone else as useless as they are.

I think that speaks a lot to how sick and twisted many people are. They want the schadenfreude. It's pathetic, and reeks of insecurity. Proles will be proles though and there is no helping them, and that's why proles and animals are free.

To the extent we have inequality in our justice system (at least as it pertains to drunk driving manslaughter cases), the solution isn't to punish more rich white kids. Maybe it should just be to go easier on poor minority kids.
Click to expand...

To me, fairness has always included the requirement that bad people be miserable and suffer to an appropriate degree. Not seeing bad people suffer has always made me miserable.

I don't personally believe much in forgiveness. Bad people rarely seek it. I don't believe in rehabilitation of bad people, as it rarely happens, and is most often just a false promise so we can all be gullible and show leniency.

Forgiveness in my life mostly comes out of my own, weak nature, or when I am too lazy to deal with drama or too stupid to understand the situation going on around me.
 
Taft2016 said:
It would also have a sort of built-in tort reform. Since lawyers would now be civil servants working for the government, they wouldn't get greedy and look for inflated settlements in civil cases, of which they'd walk away with 50% of if they were still in private practice.

And all of the settlement money would go to the plaintiff.

And the loser wouldn't have to pay the settlement AND a huge lawyer fee.

This tort reform would also lower health care costs, and prevent defensive medicine.

So what's the stumbling block?
Click to expand...

It's a stupid idea. You are going to let the state run the defense of those being prosecuted by the state? Fuck that!
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It's a stupid idea. You are going to let the state run the defense of those being prosecuted by the state? Fuck that!
Click to expand...

Not really. Today's prosecuting attorney could be tomorrow's defense attorney. They'll work from a rotation pool.

They would have no personal career motivation, other than pursuit of truth and justice.
 
Threedee said:
To me, fairness has always included the requirement that bad people be miserable and suffer to an appropriate degree. Not seeing bad people suffer has always made me miserable.

I don't personally believe much in forgiveness. Bad people rarely seek it. I don't believe in rehabilitation of bad people, as it rarely happens, and is most often just a false promise so we can all be gullible and show leniency.

Forgiveness in my life mostly comes out of my own, weak nature, or when I am too lazy to deal with drama or too stupid to understand the situation going on around me.
Click to expand...

I believe firmly in forgiveness. That does not mean that I believe there should be no consequences (or what amounts to no consequences) for such actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top