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.

My bad, then.

 LethalShade wrote:
My bad, then.

Quick notes. Jumped out car, punched in the head. Victim hit had on pavement Victim died 2 days later .....
Bias or not. They need jail time.

Direct link from act to cause of death

 jhe90 wrote:

 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

If people consider drinking and driving an accident, how do they not consider what happened with the 14 year old an accident?

For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.

Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.

Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.

As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.

But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.


Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.

As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.

But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.

Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.

Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.

This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.


Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.

As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.

But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.

Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.

Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?

Having worked in a facility for rehabilitating the mentally ill back in to the community, I worked with people who were much more violent than the 14 year old. I find it hard to believe that not a single facility would take him. He was not even close to too much of a risk.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.


Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.

As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.

But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.

Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.

Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?

Having worked in a facility for rehabilitating the mentally ill back in to the community, I worked with people who were much more violent than the 14 year old. I find it hard to believe that not a single facility would take him. He was not even close to too much of a risk.

Well from article, they chose not too. Could not go free without treatment and such so only one option left, jail system.
No full case details so not sure what it was, be a reason somewhere out there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.

This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.

And nor should it be an excuse. But he didn't sit down in his car and decide to run over people, he had a vehicular accident and people died. Intent is the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge, it can be fairly significant. From what i can tell, he did get convicted he just got extremely lucky with a second chance during sentencing, and then blew it. Something tells me the prosecutor may get his 20 years after all.

As to the other boy, it would be interesting to know why the programs refused to accept him, but he did have a potential out. Did he show remorse? Most mental health programs won't accept someone who doesn't show willingness to participate. Did he have a prior record (not necessarily convictions, more 'was he doing things that were known about'? More info is needed. What i'm getting from this judge is that he was giving people chances - one wasn't able to take advantage of it, and the other one blew it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).

Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?

Accidents happen man.

He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.

This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.

Exactly. People drink to get an effect, knowing full well the things that can possibly happen if too much is consumed. This kid chose to gamble with people's lives and they lost, same as the puncher. Both should be locked away for several years.

The really interesting this about this is that I think it's very unlikely he would have been in any significant trouble for the beer pong video, whereas now that he has fled, if he gets caught he's looking at 10 years from a judge disinclined to cut any slack whatsoever.

There is no doubt if he is caught now that the judge will not want to appear to be lenient. Too much media attention and contrasts with poor black kids getting far worse punishments for similar crimes.

(CNN)
Mexican authorities have detained so-called "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch and his mother near the popular Mexican Pacific beach resort town of Puerto Vallarta, officials briefed on the matter told CNN.

Couch went missing earlier this month, two years after he made national news when he was sentenced to probation for a drunken driving crash that killed four people.

Couch is expected to be turned over to U.S. Marshals, who have spent weeks searching for him.

He is wanted by authorities in Tarrant County, Texas, for allegedly violating probation. His mother was listed by Texas authorities as a missing person after her son's disappearance, and the authorities said they believed she was assisting her son.

Good.

I figured he and his mother would be caught in fairly quick fashion. Now to see what the court does with him this time around.

Surprised Mexico - the US has an extradition treaty with Mexico.

 Ouze wrote:
Surprised Mexico - the US has an extradition treaty with Mexico.

I don't figure they're a very bright pair. Add in a probable lack of social skill and they likely didn't have any place else they could think to run to.

But you could speak just as much Spanish in Venezuela!

But I guess being rich doesn't automatically make you smart, as you say.

Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.

Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.

As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.

Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.

As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.

Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.

It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions.
Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...

Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time.
No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.

Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is.
Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.


If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.

There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.

Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.

Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.

As a driver his act was negligent to public saftey.
Simple, skidding on black ice while at sensible speed would be different.

Driving while impaired is negligent and places guilt on negligent party, aka the teen.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:

 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.

Just so we're clear, in most states the requirement of classes and practical time is generally something required for anyone under 16 attempting to get a driver's permit. Over 16 or 17, you can just attempt to get your license without having had a permit.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.

Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.

Where I live, being drunk while killing someone with a car will earn you a harsher sentence.

But being drunk while killing someone with a chainsaw will earn you a more lenient sentence because, except while driving, being drunk is a mitigating circumstance

Its a likely a more lenient sentence vs. intentional murder. If it were an accident, say you were a Canadian, riding a galloping moose down the street with a chainsaw and a Molson you would still be charged more than if you were just rgalloping down the street with a chainsaw.*


*Note in Western Canada, Canadians have the option of a passport, birth certificate, or riding in on a moose with a Molson as valid forms of ID to re-enter Canada from the US.