drunk kid kils 4 injures 11 no jail time

I don't think my views are contradictory. Serious crimes require a punitive sentence.

I made the point that sometimes what makes a crime serious or not can be a matter of chance.
That's a fact of life.
Example.
Someone may be in the habit of texting while driving.
They might do that for years and cause no problem at all.
But if one day they run over a chap crossing the road, they should spend time in jail for it.

The boy got drunk and was responsible for deaths. He should go to prison.
If the PA's have stolen money from an employer, they need to go to prison.

The latter case isn't finished yet, so we need to wait and see what happens.

Added later.
I see that the PA's were found innocent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Marquis is little more than a troll in this thread. Although several folks have strayed a bit from the straight line, this thread was originally started about *ONE* case - and not others. If you want to get right down to it, there's PLENTY of inequities in our court systems! So if he/she wants to cry about THAT he/she can go elsewhere with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My experience was a bit different. I had an aunt who suffered from dementia. Most people don't realize it, but it is a horrible way to go. My first patient as a corpsman in the Navy was a terminal cancer patient. I thought nothing could be worse, but after going through an experience with my aunt, dementia is just a bad. She lived in fear, confusion and depression even with the best of medication and care. In her more lucid moments, she knew something was wrong but she didn't know what and that caused her great fear and confusion. It was sad and tragic to watch her go through her end of life. She and I were fortunate in that I was able to get her some very good hospice care. The paramedics, the physicians, nurses and everyone were very good at honoring the DNR and managing her end of life issues. The nursing home was first rate.

 

Hi Cap.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wonder what the 'fine line' is between someone (Nigella) offering 'hush money' because she feared the PA's would 'talk', and someone (her PA's) accepting 'hush money' because of some implied threat (tacit extortion?) that they will otherwise have no reason NOT to talk and expose her personal secrets, and make some money selling Nigella's secrets to the media/court. Tricky, hey!

 

I'm sure that the books will be out soon enough.
I won't be buying any.

 

I see what your saying but laws are not written to take into account your wealth or how you were raised. I gaurentee if he was raised the identical way but very very poor he would be on death row right now.. and in Texas the death row express lane

 

I am always surprised by the victims' families not taking revenge. They just take the loss, cry and think that there will be justice prevailing what doesn't happen most of the time.

Honestly, if the kid kills my family members, as a minimum I would shot his kneecaps, just to put him in wheelchair for the rst of his life and suffer. Not to mention punishments of youth should be advertised and taught in schools, so they would understand that there is consequences. If you are old enough to drink and drive, you are old enough for full punishment...

 

They aren't just "taking the loss" - they've filed a *huge* lawsuit against him.

 

And I guess that is something, although:

1. What if the kid's parents were poor?

2. Does money solve everything?

3. I would still want to inflect wounds, just to be even. After all if the parents pay, why would that effect the kid?

 

That is true but the shouldn't have to do that. The major point here is that our justice system no longer works. This is not a case of proving if he killed and injured someone. They know he did. Yet the courts let him quite literally get away with murder. I'm willing to bat the families would rather have him serving 4 consecutive life sentences or on death row express lane over any amount of money.

I'm 28 married with a 4 year old and another due in may. We make around 60k yearly I have a 100% clean record never had as much as a parking ticket. I'm also mixed. If I was in his shoes I would be in ptision right now serving 4 life sentences out death row and if I wasn't I'd have4 vehicular manslaughter counts and 4 assaults with a deadly weapon at the very least.

Beyond that how much is a llife worth? How much are 4 worth? Should they sue his parents for everything they own? Should they put massive leans on every property vehicle they own. What would any of you do if you were in the victim's families. Shoes?

Since he affluenza should the parents be held liable? The amount of injustice here is sickening

 

What do you think should happen to the judge?

 

Well here is the thing, how would you fix our judicial system? Money talks loudly in our judicial system as well as our political system. It's one thing to complain, it is another to do.

 

Ok, you first.

Definition of a Troll courtesy of Urban Dictionary:
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

So what is it you think I'm guilty of here? Not listening to other's "arguments"? Ad hominem attacks? No substance or relevence? Straw men?

Or perhaps you think it's the last part, when I think it should be painfully obvious that I was the one trying to point out that by addressing only this case, it is in fact everyone else (bar one I've noticed) who is avoiding addressing the essence of the issue?

Have a little think. Take your time. Let me know what caused you to come to the conclusion that I'm trolling.

Here I was, thinking I was the one who brought that up in the first place, because at the end of the day this is the essence of the issue. Not inequities in general, but the fact that in this case, mitigating circumstances being allowed as an argument for sentence reduction in a courtroom has come back to bite people on the arse.

In fact, without that being recognised, one could conceivably consider the OP itself as a "troll", and likewise most of the replies to it.
Seems the emotive responses are pretty much the order of the day as far as this thread goes, and apparently you think a troll is one who posts in the expectation of exactly that type of response while ignoring other motivations.

I mean if you think this thread should only be a bunch of people getting on their high horses, falling in with a mob mentality and advocating the lynching of some rich folks, then by all means make that clear and I'll go quietly away. Personally, I expect better, although I have long ago come to the conclusion I'm to be perpetually disappointed.

 

The difference being, Fraggle, that cars aren't generally used as murder weapons.
If they were, I'm betting that little statistic would be significantly altered. I could use a car to do more damage in one minute than gun, if I were that way inclined.

 

Now Bells... this one might take a while:

Where did you get that from? If I had the inclination, I could dig out plenty of cases where a "poor me" story from a defendant's childhood has been used to get them off the hook. Mitigating circumstances has been a valid legal defence from all walks of life for quite some time now. Which I have already said.
The difference being that you choose to accept some, and decry others as being "pop-psychology". Such as, as it appears, "abuse" (presumably historical?) being a legitimate excuse.
Says who? A man can't distinguish being right and wrong in abuse cases because he was abused himself?
Bullshit. That's pop-psychology right there. And yet it remains acceptable, and you apparently have no objection.
You said, and I quote:

No. It does not "stand to reason" at all. If the parents had been poor, and failed to teach their kid right from wrong, would you still be advocating they be sued? Along with, as it happens, the company that owned the truck? What the hell has the company that owns the truck got to do with it? Are they a legitimate target simply because they have money?

Tell me something, Bells. If your kids, assuming you have any, were to rob a bank, would you consider it "justice" that if some lawyer got them off saying you hadn't brought them up properly, the bank decided to go after you on the strength of that defence? Still think you'd be all gung-ho about it then?

If you have an issue with the ruling, or the defence used to gain it, then your legal recourse should be to the justice system itself.
Advocating suing the parents and the company that owned the truck is absolutely despicable. Yet advocate that you did, with the link entitled "And so they should" and that is why my initial reply was to you.

Well, you aren't the only one here unable to detect a facetious comment, apparently.

I'm not. I'm annoyed that you seem to think, along with others, that this case in itself is worthy of discussing while ignoring the deeper issue. Like I said to Read-Only, if you consider this thread to be a lynching and all those who want to cane you for it should go away, then simply say so. Don't expect me to respect your mental capabilities, though.

Nice attempt at deflection, Bells, but the Nigella Lawson case has been front page for a couple of weeks on the same news site you got your links from. Front page. Not in the "entertainment pages".
Personally, I had to do some googling to find out who Saatchi and Lawson actually were. But I read it.

I'm not comparing the two cases, other than in pointing out that there was another case recently in which much the same verdict came down, only this time as an argument used to get two poor people off who defrauded the rich. Hence the real issue at hand is mitigating circumstances being used to get people off jail time, and that suing rich folks is not the answer, only a knee-jerk reaction from people who are blissfully unaware of, or don't care about, the actual problem. But you choose not to have to deal with it, and instead tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about and the victims should go after the family.
Got a nice big white robe and headdress to go along with that mindset?

 

And finally, for tonight:

I'm not entirely certain what it is you're insinuating. I post exactly what I think... most of the time. This is why I often get into trouble. In fact, you can often tell when I'm being disingenuous - when I come across as polite and friendly. Although I wouldn't take that as a maxim either.

"I would have thought" is an expression used commonly to express a sarcastic view of a response which conveys a misunderstanding of what was originally said. It's a very English expression, or is as far as I'm aware. My thoughts and expression follow a more English style than American. I'm aware that this is an American forum, and that there are times when an expression used can be read by Americans devoid of cultural context, but I don't care to change my literary style to suit you.

In other words, TDMOE, I posted exactly what I meant to, and that response to you was in fact a form of sarcasm.

TDMOE, I have better diction and spelling capability when completely and utterly fall down drunk than 70% of posters here do while sober. You're going to have to better than that if you want to come at me with a typo. Tonight, I am completely sober. When I don't point it out either way, there are precious few who can tell the difference.

One of the better things one can do in life is develop the capability to laugh at oneself.
I do it a lot. In public, on occasion, just like that you've quoted. I'm giving you a reason to laugh at me. I also enjoy watching how many people think it's a reason I should be dismissed. People have a habit of accepting any circumstance or condition they can use to be able to avoid really thinking about an opposing argument. I like to give them one, to see if they're actually thinking, or looking for excuses not to.
I have my little box of research tools, most of which are worn from long use.

The comparison wasn't on the case itself, but used for the purposes of pointing out that lawyers will use whatever defence they can for their clients, and that it works both for rich and poor.
No, I do not think that at all, and never once indicated that I did. It was a response to Bells final statement in her first post, which was, and I quote:

I have taken great pains to point out that this is not the case at all, but it seems there are too many here who want to make it the thrust of their arguments and refuse to acknowledge their own little prejudices.

If you'd like an example of a classic misdirection, and, when you get right down to it, an emotive judgement with little basis in fact being presented as an argument, Bells has presented the above one to you.

Well and good. I would hope so; that's why I used those words.
With regard to that statement, I view the prejudice against the rich so very apparent on this forum with the same distaste I do racism. While the two are somewhat disparate in object, the fact is that both rely upon broadly painted, generic and often incorrect assumptions.

Prejudice, it seems, is only accepted as such when the "moral" majority wish to, and that acceptance generally occurs when that being viewed as prejudice no longer coincides with their own views.

That's why this case was chosen to be worthy of comment on this forum, and not the Lawson one. Both are examples of injustice. Only one deserves comment.
I find it deplorable that such an obvious prejudice is not recognised as such, and when I point it out, I am howled down and the other case dismissed summarily as being of little importance. Bells, for example, believes it would be worthy of inclusion only in the society pages.

It has little do with the details behind each case. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in why the base problems aren't being addressed.

A part of the fun in coming here is that there are so many who believe they come here for "intellectual discussion" or "enlightenment", when in fact all they desire is to find support for their own petty thoughts and prejudices - or perhaps just to find anyone who will listen.
"Chattering monkeys", someone said to me recently (paraphrased). I like that.

I thought I had. You are demonstrating that I had not... at least not to you. Or to Bells.
Perhaps, now, you can see the context behind "I would have thought".

 

Yes, it is. Not quite what I said though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But, if you're going to insist, Let's make the presumption that you are quite correct and that all instances of mitigating circumstances are raised in abuse cases. I would tend to disagree, but the point is moot either way and doesn't change the argument.

The fact is that psychology plays a part in many cases heard in court. My point was that, psychology not being a metric science, you get to choose which "mitigating circumstances" you choose to accept and which you do not. Or, to be more accurate with regard to the words you've written in this thread, which you choose to ignore and which you do not.
I could mention that with regard to the continued insistence of the justice system in using that kind of defence, the two amount to much the same thing, but I'm becoming increasingly aware that you're not really amenable to the study of minutiae.

Although, here we have some sort of proof that it isn't a matter of you ignoring the minutiae, it's more one of you not even being aware of them.
I'm actually becoming less surprised with every word that you post, that you can't see what it has to do with it.

Mmmm. I'm observing how you keep coming back to the word "wealth", or "Rich" when describing this. The term used, Bells, was "Affluenza", a condition a psychologist used in court as a defence.
Thing is, you're oversimplifying the decision, you wriggly little thing, you. I'm not sure yet whether that's intentional on your part or not. By saying the kid was let off "because of his wealth" is just a little silly.


You're using the word "wealth" and "money" rather a lot, in this thread.
I can smell something...

Oh, are we playing dodge ball now? What's the matter, Bells, you don't like the question?

And as to your.. reply... what is that odour?

I'll give you a bit of leeway on this one because I left out part of my reply, that being "...should be to challenge the justice system itself.
But unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the fact that you're still wriggling. My objection was not noted to be against the victims' families suing per se, but rather to their targets.
Something you're completely ignoring here.

Your contention is that suing the parents, and even the trucking company who owned the vehicle is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. Mine is that that is despicable.

In fact, I wonder if you're even aware that by doing so, you're giving validity to both the defence itself, and the judges decision. The only legal grounding upon which you could mount a civil case against the parents would be to do so under the assumption that "affluenza" is real, that the kid wasn't responsible, and that the parents were.
Which makes the decision of the judge correct.

Oh, I see. Now you're trying to find a "deeper issue" which is more to your taste. Are you implying the judge was bought? Just say it, Bells. For the record. Although to do so would detract even more from any civil case alleging parental responsibility.

That niggling odour.

How many times do I need say it, Bells? 5? 10? The details behind each case aren't important.

Both verdicts were actually not guilty, Bells. So yes, they are the same.

And here, all you're doing is spouting hearsay evidence that the UK jury "presumably accepted".
I do like these little turns of phrase in news articles. I'm guessing the author was more than a little surprised as well.

I actually did read that article you linked. This is a part of the problem of a jury consisting of "12 of your peers". My guess is that the jury in that case were 12 little Bells.
There's a reason some opt to face a judge directly rather than a jury. Those unwashed masses do tend to be easily swayed, particularly when its a wealthy guy up in the dock. Saatchi has just found that out, presumably to his displeasure.

Personally, I could tear that article apart in less than five minutes. I read through it once, then once more to find all the little bits that should have been challenged by any respectable lawyer - although, it must be said that juries are and have always been susceptible to the kind of prejudice you're displaying so adequately here.

Again, Bells, the details of the cases themselves are not the basis of comparison.

Guilty people got off in both cases due to some fairly clever lawyering. In both cases, the circumstances surrounding the events at hand or which led up to them were used as a defence. In both cases, the perpetrators were let off. In fact, the two PA's, the poor folks, got off completely.
So don't sit there and try to make this all about "rich people". It's about the justice system itself, and how clever lawyers are using your bleeding hearts against you.

And there's that odour.
It's your hatred. Seeps through, like the way I smell the next day after I've had a skinful of bourbon the night before.
Disguise it all you like, the smell is there.
Sometimes people know what it is, and sometimes they don't.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've left this until last, because your reply really had nothing to do with anything.
There's nothing about it I need to "get", Bells. You're telling me a story, and asking me to accept it at face value. Fact is, I have no idea who you are, nor who your kids are. So I have absolutely no idea what you expect to gain here by posting that.

I will relate a little story of my own, here.
I went to a party once, one where the kids all played outside, the mums chatted away indoors and the hubbies were outside drinking. Typical Aussie backyard affair, really. One of the boys was very aggressive. He pushed other kids over, hit them, took whatever they were playing with.
When this was brought to the attention of the mother, she merely said "Not my boy. It's not in his nature". More or less her exact words. She dismissed the whole thing.

I wonder if Anton Breviks mother ever thought he'd go on a shooting rampage.