Rich deemed innocent of fatal DUI because rich, spoiled

[nahadef]

Here's the kind of news that just exists to infuriate and make you hate the system.

16 year old loaded on booze and Valium plows car into pedestrians, kills four. Lawyer argues that he had never been taught consequences, therefore punishment would be unfair. He gets probation. Utterly pathetic. Who do you blame? The system? America? Humanity's love of money?

Is anyone not appalled by this?

Texas rich kid who killed 4 in drunken car crash spared jail - Daily News

 

[Hezam]

The car crash would never happen if he was not drunk, so in my opinion it's the Alcohol.
It's easy in the U.S to get alcohol, even with the legal age law underagers still can get alcohol easily.

 

[nahadef]

The car crash would never happen if he was not drunk, so in my opinion it's the Alcohol.
It's easy in the U.S to get alcohol, even with the legal age law underagers still can get alcohol easily.

So you think he's innocent too?

 

[Hezam]

No! of course he is guilty...i wanted to say that he did not mean to kill them.
I would like to know the punishment in the American law for such cases when someone kills someone else by mistake.

 

[nahadef]

He should have gotten about 10 years. I don't know about where you're from, but there have been very prominent anti-drinking and driving campaigns for 30 years in America. Driving drunk is considered equal to waving a loaded gun in a crowd. Nobody is ignorant of the danger, just reckless. He was taking Valium too, so he would not have been able to see straight or react quickly at all. He probably was laughing his head off until the accident occurred.

Kids are reckless, but this goes way beyond that.

 

[Hezam]

I live in Saudi Arabia, but i'm from Yemen.There is no case like this because people do not drink alcohol at all.But there is a similar case when the driver is using drugs, in this case it's death penalty.

 

[astarisborn94]

Should have gotten life in prison to be honest or at least a very long sentence. He killed four people and injured eleven others. How could anyone even remotely excuse such atrocities can only be explained by money.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I am surprised they did not just go with the old "he is too young to know better" routine. Everyone seems to think 16 year olds are just helpless little kids these days in America.

16 is plenty old enough to figure out right and wrong on one's own. Justice has not been served. And it will not be served unless the people take justice into their own hands.

And also, you know officials were bought right? This maniac was not given a slap on the wrist based on the lawyer's pleas. Not a chance.

Incidentally, it seems the parents gave him a car to drive. But no charges on them. Its interesting that. If an adult had sex with him there would condemnation and legal charges and claims that he cannot consent. But you can give him a machine that can kill him and others and when deaths occur, the provider is not so much as given a glance. How does being given the means to turn a friend into a vegetable compare with a shag?

Incidentally I grew up fairly poor, but I also started driving at 13 and was driving drunk at 16. But I did not do it with a car load of friends nor did I speed when drunk (only sober). And I may have bought my alcohol illegally but I did not steal it.

I may have been a bit wild, but this punk is out of control. I expect he will be in the news again.

 

[alecgraham]

Who do you blame? The system? America? Humanity's love of money?

The affluenza case. I remember this when it came out although I haven't visited this forum for a while. Yes, I was appalled.
I blame the judge, whom I think should be disbarred.

 

[nahadef]

Did Zorro bring up minor sex in this case? Was I not surprised?

The same answer for both those questions.

 

[FinancialWar]

"everybody thinks they are a lawyer and they don't know sh*t"

 

[nahadef]

"everybody thinks they are a lawyer and they don't know sh*t"

As per usual, you have added far less to the conversation than the time it took you to wrote it. Must be a FW thing.

 

[FinancialWar]

"Rich deemed innocent of fatal DUI because rich, spoiled".

A person is "deemed innocent" until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

However the fact is, the accused already pleaded guilty, and was sentenced, his "riches" does not change the his guilt, and therefore can not be "deemed innocent" again.

If you referring the the fact that the kid got a light sentence compared to the consequences that he caused by his crime, then that's another story.

 

[nahadef]

"Rich deemed innocent of fatal DUI because rich, spoiled".

A person is "deemed innocent" until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

However the fact is, the accused already pleaded guilty, and was sentenced, his "riches" does not change the his guilt, and therefore can not be "deemed innocent" again.

If you referring the the fact that the kid got a light sentence compared to the consequences that he caused by his crime, then that's another story.

Apparently, "everybody thinks they are a lawyer and they don't know sh*t."

You've proven that. Good job!

 

[FinancialWar]

Apparently, "everybody thinks they are a lawyer and they don't know sh*t."

You've proven that. Good job!

Nice comeback, proves that I know just a little bit more.

 

[nahadef]

Nice comeback, proves that I know just a little bit more.

It's your humility that makes you beloved by everyone though.

 

[FinancialWar]

once again nahadef tries to change the subject

can we all agree that

1. Kid pleaded guilty.

2. Kid was sentenced that's deemed appropriate by the judge. (surely the judge knows more about the law and the case)

3. The family will likely pay out a large amount of compensation in civil cases to the victims.

4. Rich people are the roles models of society.

 

[nahadef]

once again nahadef tries to change the subject

Nope. Once again, FW posts inane stuff and gets huffy that someone calls him on it.

can we all agree that

1. Kid pleaded guilty.

Not in the original article. More accurately, the kid was caught red-handed.

2. Kid was sentenced that's deemed appropriate by the judge. (surely the judge knows more about the law and the case)

In an article since, the judge was shown to have very harsh sentences to black people. The judge appears to be either clueless, corrupt, or just flat out racist. If you want to stick up for them, go for it. Not many will back you.
Dr. Boyce: Rich, White Kids Have ﾂ"Affluenza,ﾂ" Poor, Black Kids Go to Prison | Your Black World

Judge Boyd once gave a 10-year sentence to a teen who punched someone who died after falling and hitting his head.

3. The family will likely pay out a large amount of compensation in civil cases to the victims.

Your conjecture. Irrelevant. According to the original article:

The families of his victims said money wouldn't buy their loved ones back.

Breanna Mitchell's mother, Marla Mitchel, wore some of her cremated daughter's ashes in a locket around her neck during the trial, according to local reports.

She told the Star-Telegram, "[Couch] is not free. None of us knows what God's plan is. He has not escaped judgment. That is in the hands of a higher power."

I know you're a kind of compulsive troll here, always on the verge of being unacceptable, never quite crossing the line. Your last point proves it:

4. Rich people are the roles models of society.

Maybe you think you're being an a****** in service of proving that America or Western values are corrupt or something, but at the end of the day, you're simply being an a******, and that's not respectable. They're ignorant, what's your excuse?

 

[FinancialWar]

Now it's about black and white and now just rich vs poor? How many cards do you want to play here.

"Judge Boyd once gave a 10-year sentence to a teen who punched someone who died after falling and hitting his head."

A teen that guilty of murder vs a teen guilty of four account of intoxication manslaughter. Seriously, why is there any comparison?

The kid who commits murder is a murderer, he had the mens rea to kill or injure. Ethan Couch is not a murder, he did not have the intent to kill, he was criminally negligent. Murder vs negligence, if you think a negligent person should receive the same punishment as a murderer, then your don't deserve to be a judge and you will never be.

Ethan Couch will grow up to be a successful businessman like his father, and be an asset to the society and pay lots of taxes and repay his debt to society, while that black kid that punch someone to death, will always be a criminal like his father, a life of criminality and always a liability to society, pay no taxes, live off government payment or live in jail. Excuse the generalisation.

If I were the judge, what do you do? Of course I would not send Ethan to jail, it would take highly experienced and logical judge to make such sentencing, a judge who is not only focused on retribution which can destroy a potential productive person. That's why you are not a judge.

ps, why are your references so crap? The first article had about six lines of information, the second article is from "yourblackworld" written by someone who wrote "The 8 Principles of Black Male Empowerment".

 

[nahadef]

No use talking to a blatant racist. This is what the block is for.

 

[alecgraham]

FW, I agree with you on the negligence vs murder with intent. However, criminally negligent is still *criminally* negligent and I cannot help but second-guess the judge in this case.

A few years ago there was an article in the NY Times about the sad state of courts in upsate NY where I grew up. For example, when a man was on trial for punching his wife, the judge decided that ""Every woman needs a good pounding every now and then." It was like reading about a corrupt developing country. Found it -- will link.

Now, you lost me when you said that Couch will become an asset to society. I'm not making an excuse for the puncher-murderer, but some of these kids who grow up in horrible conditions end up becoming productive members of society, a violent beginning notwithstanding. Meanwhile, some of these privileged kids could have an easy life without crime, but they choose crime anyway. (Bernie Madoff married into money! He did not need to steal!) Which is worse?

And many of those like Couch who don't actively choose crime are still a society deficit and detriment, not an asset. Couch could become the next white collar criminal because, like that dude in "The Outsiders" with the rings on his violent hands, his parents never told him to stop.

Again, you're probably right about the puncher, but it's hard to predict the future, hard to tell who is going to turn out alright. It shouldn't come into the judge's mind wihout a rap sheet at his disposal, if there is one. I was a privileged kid, I suppose, but I turned out alright because my parents taught me morals, not because they gave me an easy start.

 

[nahadef]

FW, I agree with you on the negligence vs murder with intent. However, criminally negligent is still *criminally* negligent and I cannot help but second-guess the judge in this case.

Do you really think the kid punched someone with the intent to kill? It seems like he wanted to punch him, which is 99% of the time non-lethal. Being put in prison for ten years is likely to seriously damage him, so he'll be good for nothing when he gets out, without a network to help him out. That rich kid would still be rich, and would have actually learned something about being responsible.

 

[alecgraham]

Well, I suppose this is why I shouldn't be a judge, def. I feel strongly about Couch getting off light, but I even more strongly about people who intentionally cause physical harm.

I honestly only saw that one sentence in your linked article about what happened. If you know his name, I'll look up more.

However, this is orders of magnitude worse than crimininal negligence. Even if punching is usually non-lethal, it is still intent to harm. I thought about this when that American kid punched a referee. (I forget which sport it was). The referee suffered from swelling and later died. He didn't have to fall on something either, like the victim in your article. People probably think the puncher was unlucky. I think the family of the guy who died was unlucky, and I hope the kid is put away for murder.

 

[nahadef]

Well, I suppose this is why I shouldn't be a judge, def. I feel strongly about Couch getting off light, but I even more strongly about people who intentionally cause physical harm.

I honestly only saw that one sentence in your linked article about what happened. If you know his name, I'll look up more.

However, this is orders of magnitude worse than crimininal negligence. Even if punching is usually non-lethal, it is still intent to harm. I thought about this when that American kid punched a referee. (I forget which sport it was). The referee suffered from swelling and later died. He didn't have to fall on something either, like the victim in your article. People probably think the puncher was unlucky. I think the family of the guy who died was unlucky, and I hope the kid is put away for murder.

I have a hard time seeing a punch as intending murder, though it was definitely an intent to harm. Comparing the two though, speeding while heavily intoxicated seems to be the more dangerous of the two actions. As I mentioned to Hezam, drinking and driving campaigns have been in heavy rotation for over thirty years in North America. Nobody is unaware of the dangers, which is why it is usually so stiffly sentenced.

At least your argument is better than "rich people are better humans."

 

[FinancialWar]

I honestly only saw that one sentence in your linked article about what happened. If you know his name, I'll look up more.

His article should not be taken into account, the article is written by a Black movement partisan, the article is hardly impartial on the Couch case, the author bring race into debate for his own political agenda.

If a rich black kid got the some sentencing, no one would play the race card.

The kid was irresponsibly, but that's hardly his fault, which I agree with the judge and the defense lawyer. The fault lies with his parents, which I have no doubt they will pay through large civil settlements.