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.

I can understand the laxity of the original sentence based on his age; but the fines levied on him should have been so goddamned high that he and his parents wouldn't have had to worry about affluenza for a good long while.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.

I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"

Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?

Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.

I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"

Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?

Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.

Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.

Maybe you're the rare exception. Getting mine was an absolute joke.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.

Maybe you're the rare exception. Getting mine was an absolute joke.

I think how tough it is varies from city to city.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Well at least he will be getting the book thrown at him now.

I have never understood why people who cause death by dangerous/drunken driving aren't punished more heavily.

There was an incident at home where someone killed 3 out of 4 members from a family of tourists by mounting the pavement while drunk yet he only received a 10 year prison term, although he was out in 7.

no he won't. there is a law for the rich and a law for us. as long as th rich do not hurt other rich its ok.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Well at least he will be getting the book thrown at him now.

I have never understood why people who cause death by dangerous/drunken driving aren't punished more heavily.

There was an incident at home where someone killed 3 out of 4 members from a family of tourists by mounting the pavement while drunk yet he only received a 10 year prison term, although he was out in 7.

no he won't. there is a law for the rich and a law for us. as long as th rich do not hurt other rich its ok.

The guy that killed 27 people only got ten years, and he was just a Joe Blow.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.

It was entirely the failed War on Drugs that built the cartels. If it was legal and everybody could grow it, why would we want to import it?

Marijuana is a special case due to the relative ease of preparation. Even in countries where alcohol is legal you still get criminals cutting their product with methanol, methamphetamine production famously risks causing fires or explosions, and amateur production of desomorphine produces a drug with the small side effect of rotting the flesh from your bones.

I still don't want smoking marijuana to ever be legal, but apart from the jackasses who turn their mind-altering substances into an aerosol it's not an inherently problematic drug the way heroin or methamphetamines are.

 AlexHolker wrote:
..it's not an inherently problematic drug the way heroin or methamphetamines are.

Except for the skunk-like stink.

 Breotan wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
..it's not an inherently problematic drug the way heroin or methamphetamines are.

Except for the skunk-like stink.

Honest question, is that just a problem with marijuana smokers, or also people who eat the stuff?

Smokers, mostly.

Unfortunately we are not yet at a level of social sophistication that allows the imposition of heavy prison terms on people whose smell we dislike.

Regardless of smokers, the person involved is basically someone who has learned nothing, has no respect for law that was so lenient and family think they can do as they please. Parole terms are well, solid lines you do not cross, not just some joke to ignore


Go feth them all, there both idiots.

 jhe90 wrote:
Regardless of smokers, the person involved is basically someone who has learned nothing, has no respect for law that was so lenient and family think they can do as they please. Parole terms are well, solid lines you do not cross, not just some joke to ignore


Go feth them all, there both idiots.

I am thinking with such a set of social skills, they should soon come to light. I don't seriously think they have or will find any friends that are either intelligent enough to keep shut about them, or they'll just outright piss people they are trying to hide among off with their arrogance.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if they were found dead, either by murder or suicide.

What...did....my...eyes...just....see.....



Did this kid really get away with murdering several people, essentially because he is rich....

They should sent him to the most hardcore prison there is, tell the populace he murdered 12 people, including children and then forget to leave the cellz locked

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They should sent him to the most hardcore prison there is, tell the populace he murdered 12 people, including children and then forget to leave the cellz locked

RAR IM SO TOUGH ON CRIME KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD KILL THEM AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Formosa wrote:
What...did....my...eyes...just....see.....



Did this kid really get away with murdering several people, essentially because he is rich....

Of course. Rich people don't go to real jail unless they harm other rich people. Didn't you know that?

 Formosa wrote:
What...did....my...eyes...just....see.....



Did this kid really get away with murdering several people, essentially because he is rich....

There is the recent case of the Saudi exec who beat a rape charge by saying he tripped on his way through the living room to the bathroom and accidently penetrated a girl who was sleeping on a couch.

The court bought it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Because it was an accident. A young kid who kills several people in a car accident (manslaughter) with no priors will get a very minor punishment- as he or she should, it's an accident. But the drinking on top of it is when I begin to question the judge's decision.

 Formosa wrote:
What...did....my...eyes...just....see.....



Did this kid really get away with murdering several people, essentially because he is rich....

Justice is where you buy it. - Old American Proverb

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Because it was an accident. A young kid who kills several people in a car accident (manslaughter) with no priors will get a very minor punishment- as he or she should, it's an accident. But the drinking on top of it is when I begin to question the judge's decision.

Once you add alcohol it goes from accident to you made a choice, a choice making unfit to drive and thus culpable.

Indeed. Accidents are what happen when some factor beyond your control causes your driving to go wrong, for example, if a tyre burst at legitimate high speed on the motorway, or a deer jumped in front of you on a country road, which causes you to swerve and hit someone on the side of the road.

In other circumstances, so-called accidents arise from negligence or mistakes by the driver. Speeding, driving under the influence, not looking where you are going, not signalling properly, and so on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.

I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"

Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?

Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.

Maryland requires classes and a significant amount of practical time behind the wheel. Plus, the not drinking and driving was hammered in all the time.

A quick google on this topic turned up this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-jen-boyd-black-teen-prison-2013-12?IR=T

Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.

Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.

 Da Boss wrote:
A quick google on this topic turned up this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-jen-boyd-black-teen-prison-2013-12?IR=T

Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.

Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.

It's tangentially the income level. The kid with money can afford a great lawyer; the 14 year old might not have been as able to find good representation.

Meh, juvenile "justice" in Texas is pretty much a joke unless they get certified as an adult, which is generally only done in aggravated robberies, capital murders, etc. Usually it's just probation because the goal is rehabilitation.

Judge made a bad call in this one and now it's showing. Should have sent him to TJJD.

 Da Boss wrote:
A quick google on this topic turned up this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-jen-boyd-black-teen-prison-2013-12?IR=T

Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.

Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.

Now you understand.

 Da Boss wrote:
A quick google on this topic turned up this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-jen-boyd-black-teen-prison-2013-12?IR=T

Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.

Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.

Either this or racial bias.

No matter the reason, it is disgusting.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
A quick google on this topic turned up this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-jen-boyd-black-teen-prison-2013-12?IR=T

Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.

Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.

Either this or racial bias.

No matter the reason, it is disgusting.

Very clear hostile intent though and there's a clear link from the act to the victins death.
He did kill that person, it may have been days later but the fact us that act caused the event.

They sound like a thug of the worst kind