Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The State argued for a fair, if not lenient, sentence that clearly factored in his age (no way an adult would have gotten such a low offer and no sane judge would put a quadruple homicide offender on probation)- 20 years. What the original judge did was just absurd. Treatment is great, but designed for those with substance issues, not for someone who murders 4 people and paralyzes another. Plus, they have treatment on correctional facilities (as well as other programs).

Infuriating.

The State argued for a fair, if not lenient, sentence that clearly factored in his age

And his family's income. Thats the important part. DO you think Jethro from Diboll ("I lost my eyeball in Diboll") or Jesus from the 4th Ward would have received the same sentence?

Also is it me or does he look like he has a little FAS?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However as the perp is now an adult he will do the time in adult prison, which will no doubt be a lot tougher.

If you believe in rehabilitation there isn't any point in putting a silly 18 year old away for 10 years.

Given that little punk pissed all over the Judge's goodwill and leniency, yeah, a couple years in prison will teach him a thing or two.

It's a nice idea, but rehabilitation basically doesn't work. People are who they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is always .08.
Now depending on your class of lisense it can be lower. bus dirvers it is .02

Well, not exactly. Way back when, it was 0.10%... even 0.15%.

IMO, the pendulum swings too far. 0.08% is barely anything.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

It's a nice idea, but rehabilitation basically doesn't work. People are who they are.

Citation needed. The number of people in jail in the US compared to the rest of the industrialised world would seem to suggest otherwise.

FWIW 0.08 BAC is not "hardly anything", if anything the US is lenient compared to European countries. Alcohol and traffic does not mix. Ever.

If I recall correctly the original sentencing judge gave 10 years probation. I'm too lazy to sift through the internet to confirm, but that tells me the judge knew he would fail. Most people can't make it a year on probation before they screw up, especially in a case involving substance abuse of some sort. Half my job is revoking people that couldn't pee clean for drugs or DUIs. You give them a second chance and they gaff it off. In America you typically lose your license for a DUI, and when you're resentenced in my state you lose it all over again if you lose supervision. But people constantly drink anyway, even if they are looking at potential prison for a felony grade DUI. People never cease to amaze me.

Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
If I recall correctly the original sentencing judge gave 10 years probation. I'm too lazy to sift through the internet to confirm, but that tells me the judge knew he would fail. Most people can't make it a year on probation before they screw up, especially in a case involving substance abuse of some sort. Half my job is revoking people that couldn't pee clean for drugs or DUIs. You give them a second chance and they gaff it off. In America you typically lose your license for a DUI, and when you're resentenced in my state you lose it all over again if you lose supervision. But people constantly drink anyway, even if they are looking at potential prison for a felony grade DUI. People never cease to amaze me.

Even still, 10 years probation for 4 counts of manslaughter and 1 count of assault with a deadly weapon or vehicular negligence (not sure what you'd call paralyzing a guy with a vehicle) seems like a pretty light sentence. Again, the teen got off fething easy all because he was rich.

People like him have no sense of consequences, and not punishing him fairly encourages this behavior.

Edit: to clarify, I'd bet a week's paycheck that if I or any other average citizen did this, we'd get at least 5 years jail time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

To be fair, I don't know about the original case, but in regards to fleeing to Mexico, it sounds like it was entirely the mom's idea and that the dad was pissed he was violating his probation.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

To be fair, I don't know about the original case, but in regards to fleeing to Mexico, it sounds like it was entirely the mom's idea and that the dad was pissed he was violating his probation.

Even if it was the mom's idea, he was 18(?) at the time. I don't think that diminishes his responsibility in any way. Dad might have been pissed, but reading about them it doesn't seem they really cared about raising him right, he was living alone as a 16 year old, which eventually lead to the deaths of 4 people.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

I'm arguing with someone right now over the efficacy of the polio vaccine.

I just got this as a reply. Desperately trying not to bleed out of my eyeballs:
"Okay, look up who's getting sick. Polio example is a myth at best, lots of evidence that says the vaccine did not eradicate polio. So use it all you want, it ain't so.

The health Nazis who want forced vaccinations are generally ignorant about health, and certainly ignorant about good diet and nutrition. So eat your cupcakes and donuts, take yer blood pressure medicine, testosterone, and cholesterol lowering drugs, and havena nice day. "

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

I'm arguing with someone right now over the efficacy of the polio vaccine.

I just got this as a reply. Desperately trying not to bleed out of my eyeballs:
"Okay, look up who's getting sick. Polio example is a myth at best, lots of evidence that says the vaccine did not eradicate polio. So use it all you want, it ain't so.

The health Nazis who want forced vaccinations are generally ignorant about health, and certainly ignorant about good diet and nutrition. So eat your cupcakes and donuts, take yer blood pressure medicine, testosterone, and cholesterol lowering drugs, and havena nice day. "

You must have a lot more patience than me if you're actually trying to argue with someone who says things like that

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

I'm arguing with someone right now over the efficacy of the polio vaccine.

I just got this as a reply. Desperately trying not to bleed out of my eyeballs:
"Okay, look up who's getting sick. Polio example is a myth at best, lots of evidence that says the vaccine did not eradicate polio. So use it all you want, it ain't so.

The health Nazis who want forced vaccinations are generally ignorant about health, and certainly ignorant about good diet and nutrition. So eat your cupcakes and donuts, take yer blood pressure medicine, testosterone, and cholesterol lowering drugs, and havena nice day. "

That person needs to be jabbed by a rusty needle which was previously dipped into smallpox and polio soup. They are given the choice of getting vaccinated first and then afterwards are offered a tetanus shot.

Also, the health nazis are ignorant about health and good diet? I'd bet money, cash money, that pretty much every medical doctor would, when approaching the issue from a medical rather than political angle, support vaccination which you couldn't opt out of without having a medical reason.

Well, in my defense, everyone on the site is really really well armed and crotchety. Just like me,

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
If I recall correctly the original sentencing judge gave 10 years probation. I'm too lazy to sift through the internet to confirm, but that tells me the judge knew he would fail. Most people can't make it a year on probation before they screw up, especially in a case involving substance abuse of some sort. Half my job is revoking people that couldn't pee clean for drugs or DUIs. You give them a second chance and they gaff it off. In America you typically lose your license for a DUI, and when you're resentenced in my state you lose it all over again if you lose supervision. But people constantly drink anyway, even if they are looking at potential prison for a felony grade DUI. People never cease to amaze me.

Even still, 10 years probation for 4 counts of manslaughter and 1 count of assault with a deadly weapon or vehicular negligence (not sure what you'd call paralyzing a guy with a vehicle) seems like a pretty light sentence. Again, the teen got off fething easy all because he was rich.

People like him have no sense of consequences, and not punishing him fairly encourages this behavior.

Edit: to clarify, I'd bet a week's paycheck that if I or any other average citizen did this, we'd get at least 5 years jail time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

To be fair, I don't know about the original case, but in regards to fleeing to Mexico, it sounds like it was entirely the mom's idea and that the dad was pissed he was violating his probation.

You're preaching to the choir. I think he should rot for taking those lives with his stupidity. But it wasn't quite the slap on the wrist that some news sources were claiming. I actually had a similar case in my county recently. A drunk guy killed a girl who was in the middle of the street who was also intoxicated. But this defendant was old as dirt and had a clean record. He got a couple years probation and 60 days in the jail at the sentencing hearing. It is what it is.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

To be fair, I don't know about the original case, but in regards to fleeing to Mexico, it sounds like it was entirely the mom's idea and that the dad was pissed he was violating his probation.

Even if it was the mom's idea, he was 18(?) at the time. I don't think that diminishes his responsibility in any way. Dad might have been pissed, but reading about them it doesn't seem they really cared about raising him right, he was living alone as a 16 year old, which eventually lead to the deaths of 4 people.

Sorry, wasn't trying to make it seem like I was defending the kid. More that I'm not sure how complicit the dad was in all of this.

 Cave_Dweller wrote:


Isn't it a felony crime in Canada? But here, we have a scale of inebriation levels with various penalties.

He's young but that's not an excuse. He got off lightly IMO.

I read once or twice about a Canadian affluent, young person (~20 years old) who drove drunk and killed a grandpa and a couple of grandkids in the same car As I recall, he got sentenced to like 20 years and can't drive until he's like 60.

It's been compared to the affulenza case a couple times in the light that Canada still sentences drunk driving harshly, even to the rich and young. Wish I could find a link to the story, but I can't seem to find anything.

Maybe I'm finally going crazy? Anyone else heard of a case along those lines?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Think George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

This kid has shown an amazing lack of empathy (so did his parents). He will most likely never become a well functioning adult if prison doesn't have an impact (affluenza and such). He should never be allowed to drive again though.

Edit: You're correct on the ten years, its in the spoilered article I posted a few posts up.

To be fair, I don't know about the original case, but in regards to fleeing to Mexico, it sounds like it was entirely the mom's idea and that the dad was pissed he was violating his probation.

Even if it was the mom's idea, he was 18(?) at the time. I don't think that diminishes his responsibility in any way. Dad might have been pissed, but reading about them it doesn't seem they really cared about raising him right, he was living alone as a 16 year old, which eventually lead to the deaths of 4 people.

Sorry, wasn't trying to make it seem like I was defending the kid. More that I'm not sure how complicit the dad was in all of this.

Sorry if my response made it seem like I thought you were doing so. It was clear to me that you weren't, I was just giving my viewpoint on it.

Affluenza kid should have to feed and wipe his paralyzed victim for the rest of his life.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Affluenza kid should have to feed and wipe his paralyzed victim for the rest of his life.

I can tell you right now - if it had been me, I wouldn't want him anywhere near me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Well, not exactly. Way back when, it was 0.10%... even 0.15%.

IMO, the pendulum swings too far. 0.08% is barely anything.

Umm, no.
The AMA indicates that impairment starts at 0.02. Keep in mind that an average shot/beer/glass of wine will raise your peak BAC by about 0.02 and the average person metabolizes that amount in roughly an hour, so a BAC of 0.08 indicates about four drinks at peak level actively in the system with no metabolization. A 0.08 is when 4 shots hit all at the same time. (4 shots over 4 hours would be around a 0.00 BAC).

0.10 would be 5 shots peaking, 0.15 would be 7-8!

0.08 is extremely high and is misleading to think people below that should be driving. They shouldn't.

Let's put it this way, if your pilot came in and you smelled tequila and he said, don't worry, I've only had 2 shots, you cool with that? What about your cabbie or kid's bus driver?

Realistically, any measurable BAC over 0.01 or so should get popped with a misdemeanor with at least a fine. By the time someone hits 0.08, you are talking about a situation where that person shouldn't be anywhere near the wheel.

People are terrible drivers as a whole to begin with. Adding intoxication is just putting a match near gasoline.

No, the difference is that 0.10 is at a level where it is obvious that they are drunk and should not be driving.

0.08 is not "extremely high", given that people have lived with BAC of 0.20 and higher. There are people who can finish a fifth of liquor in a single night, every night.

Driving buzzed isn't a big deal. It's no different from driving under allergies, or sleepy. Or after eating a heavy meal. And we don't criminalize any of that. Especially as it is likely that sleepy driving kills more people than drunks do.

As for the pilot, the standard is for someone responsible for 100s of people, possibly 1000s of people. In a car or truck, at worst, you take out another car, maybe a schoolbus. Maximum impact? 50 people dead/injured. But the airplane pilot?
10,000 people dead or injured.

But yeah, I get that you're a zero tolerance guy. I just hope you're not so hypocritical as to not apply it 100% of the time to yourself in every aspect of your life every second of the day.

 jmurph wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Well, not exactly. Way back when, it was 0.10%... even 0.15%.

IMO, the pendulum swings too far. 0.08% is barely anything.

Umm, no.
The AMA indicates that impairment starts at 0.02. Keep in mind that an average shot/beer/glass of wine will raise your peak BAC by about 0.02 and the average person metabolizes that amount in roughly an hour, so a BAC of 0.08 indicates about four drinks at peak level actively in the system with no metabolization. A 0.08 is when 4 shots hit all at the same time. (4 shots over 4 hours would be around a 0.00 BAC).

0.10 would be 5 shots peaking, 0.15 would be 7-8!

0.08 is extremely high and is misleading to think people below that should be driving. They shouldn't.

Let's put it this way, if your pilot came in and you smelled tequila and he said, don't worry, I've only had 2 shots, you cool with that? What about your cabbie or kid's bus driver?

Realistically, any measurable BAC over 0.01 or so should get popped with a misdemeanor with at least a fine. By the time someone hits 0.08, you are talking about a situation where that person shouldn't be anywhere near the wheel.

People are terrible drivers as a whole to begin with. Adding intoxication is just putting a match near gasoline.

Agreed. The average number of car accidents due to speeding is too high as it is, the BAC laws exist for a reason.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Thanks for that Disciple.

having read that timeline...

I say he should be run over with a steam roller...slowly.

That sounds too good for him. That article...that's awful. I don't think money should save him. He deserved the death penalty upon turning 18. Some might call it bloodthirsty, I call it vengeance.

Driving Under the Influence doesn't charge driving drunk, although it can. All the prosecutor needs to show is that alcohol was influencing the driver to sustain a conviction in my state. A slightly slowed reaction time = influence. Of course it's a lot easier to get a jury to convict when the driver wrecks his car, but I've gotten guilty verdicts for rolling a stop sign showing the influence.

As someone who doesn't drink, 0.08 is stupidly high. As has been said, impairment starts at 0.02, and I really don't give a damn if people have lived at 2.0, we're not measuring people's capacity to not croak it instantly, we're measuring their ability to not lose control. No driving with alcohol in your system, full stop, end of discussion. Doing so makes you both an donkeycave and a menace to yourself and others.

Nobody is living at 2.0%.

And nobody is losing control at 0.02%.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nobody is living at 2.0%.

And nobody is losing control at 0.02%.

But their reaction time is reduced to the point that it may be dangerous for them to drive and it has been determined that that risk may be too much when they are driving vehicles, such as buses, which require greater situational awareness and have greater potential for injury if an accident occurs.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, the difference is that 0.10 is at a level where it is obvious that they are drunk and should not be driving.

0.08 is not "extremely high", given that people have lived with BAC of 0.20 and higher. There are people who can finish a fifth of liquor in a single night, every night.

Driving buzzed isn't a big deal. It's no different from driving under allergies, or sleepy. Or after eating a heavy meal. And we don't criminalize any of that. Especially as it is likely that sleepy driving kills more people than drunks do.

As for the pilot, the standard is for someone responsible for 100s of people, possibly 1000s of people. In a car or truck, at worst, you take out another car, maybe a schoolbus. Maximum impact? 50 people dead/injured. But the airplane pilot?

Spoiler:

10,000 people dead or injured.

But yeah, I get that you're a zero tolerance guy. I just hope you're not so hypocritical as to not apply it 100% of the time to yourself in every aspect of your life every second of the day.

So you are arguing that a car incident that is completely avoidable is okay because the risk of casualties is lower than another risk?

.08 is pretty obviously drunk. .04 is noticeably intoxicated.