new disease discovered

aussiesmg wrote: Wow, and so the pussification continues

You stole my line.

So to show that the idea that money makes one above the law is wrong, we allow "wrongly thinking that money makes me above the law makes me above the law" as a legal defense. Sounds legit.

dean1484 wrote: I know I would be licking my chops if I was a lawyer for any / or all of the victims families as a judge has already determined that it is the parents fault and that makes following the money all that much easier.

Good point. I hope the final outcome of the civil suits is that the kid and his family wish he'd gone to jail instead. I hope they are left completely penniless, including losing their house and retirement savings, let them start over from scratch.

dean1484 wrote: Ok so if it is the parents fault that he is the way he is then they both should go to jail and there assets divided amongst the victims. I think that this would be a much better way to handle it. I know I would be licking my chops if I was a lawyer for any / or all of the victims families as a judge has already determined that it is the parents fault and that makes following the money all that much easier.

That's just it. The kid is berkeleyed hard enough for for doing this. His life is over. Where it gets TRICKY, and makes me think the judge is sly, is the fact that he allowed it. You see, doing this puts the onus of responsibility right on the parents for raising their kids poorly, and even sticks a label on it in direct relation to having a big pile of money. Without saying so he said "Hey look. These guys have a E36 M3 load of cash. It's their fault this kid is this way. The kids already hosed. See where i'm goin?". While I firmly believe that the kid should learn a lesson (and possibly already has depending on how long he was in jail and what other conditions of his probation exist) this is gonna start hitting rich folks right in the wallet.

What we need here is a good ole fashioned lynch mob.

I read most of the source article, and I missed something. Was this a Jury trial or bench trial? I can't image any jury going for that defense, not even if it was 12 1%ers.

In reply to mndsm:

So your saying that we should tax/fine the hell out of parents of rich kids who don't contribute to society in beneficial ways?

Where do I get my bumper stickers of support?

it appears that it was judge only …. and I agree with you … can't imagine a jury going along with this

HappyAndy wrote: I read most of the source article, and I missed something. Was this a Jury trial or bench trial? I can't image any jury going for that defense, not even if it was 12 1%ers.

Juvenile. (Bench)

Do I have cause to sue my parents in TX because they never taught me not to marry wealthy?

I'm sure that a large fraction of all the crimes committed in the history of mankind could be attributed to poor parenting, but this might be the first where the person who committed the crime got away easy because of it.

PHeller wrote: In reply to mndsm: So your saying that we should tax/fine the hell out of parents of rich kids who don't contribute to society in beneficial ways? Where do I get my bumper stickers of support?

Why yes, I believe that I am. MNDSM for president 2014!

N Sperlo wrote:

HappyAndy wrote: I read most of the source article, and I missed something. Was this a Jury trial or bench trial? I can't image any jury going for that defense, not even if it was 12 1%ers.

Juvenile. (Bench)

I figured that death by vehicle (committed by a 16 yo. would have been a "trial as an adult" case

betting his parents have enough money to make any law suits drag on long enough that the plaintiffs will run out of money before any resolution is reached … even with lawyers taking the case on a contingency basis

mndsm wrote:

dean1484 wrote: Ok so if it is the parents fault that he is the way he is then they both should go to jail and there assets divided amongst the victims. I think that this would be a much better way to handle it. I know I would be licking my chops if I was a lawyer for any / or all of the victims families as a judge has already determined that it is the parents fault and that makes following the money all that much easier.

That's just it. The kid is berkeleyed hard enough for for doing this. His life is over. Where it gets TRICKY, and makes me think the judge is sly, is the fact that he allowed it. You see, doing this puts the onus of responsibility right on the parents for raising their kids poorly, and even sticks a label on it in direct relation to having a big pile of money. Without saying so he said "Hey look. These guys have a E36 M3 load of cash. It's their fault this kid is this way. The kids already hosed. See where i'm goin?". While I firmly believe that the kid should learn a lesson (and possibly already has depending on how long he was in jail and what other conditions of his probation exist) this is gonna start hitting rich folks right in the wallet.

I really don't thing the kid is berkeleyed at all … (maybe I'm just cynical to the point that I don't think he has any cares about what he's done)

assuming that his parents come out of this unscathed, he's still set for life … why would he care about the people he killed ? so he''s on probation for a while … again I'm betting he couldn't care less … goes to the meetings for a while …then stops .. probation officers have way to many cases to worry if one person stops showing up … as long as he stays out of trouble for the duration, he's golden

Kids like that don't stay out of trouble. I bet it's less than 5 years before he lands a 20 year term. And even if he DOES keep his nose clean, that's something he will have to report to everyone, forever. And I am willing to bet the civil suit will about clean the parents out. I mean the judge basically said "Hey, it's these shiny happy people fault your friends and family are dead"... but they weren't on trial.

I hope they make staying sober terms of the probation. If he slips up he should go do the 20 years.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: What is the process of getting a judge thrown off the bench in TexASS ??

Probably not too different from the process in BriTAINT.

mndsm wrote: Kids like that don't stay out of trouble. I bet it's less than 5 years before he lands a 20 year term. And even if he DOES keep his nose clean, that's something he will have to report to everyone, forever. And I am willing to bet the civil suit will about clean the parents out. I mean the judge basically said "Hey, it's these shiny happy people fault your friends and family are dead"... but they weren't on trial.

He's going to a 450k a year rehab facility...at least for the first year. It'll be like a vacation.

If he had been sent to prison, sure he might get out in two years, but he would still have served some time, then been on probation when he got out.

But my guess is during that time in prison he'd get to see how normal people live, he might even get roughed up a bit.

He can ride horses and do yooooga....

Rehab is sounding a lot better than these 16 hour work days to get bills paid.

Cotton wrote: If he had been sent to prison, sure he might get out in two years, but he would still have served some time, then been on probation when he got out.

Never count on that........being it was a juvenile case in a juvenile court, after 18yo, it is seriously a crapshoot as to if anything would have been placed longer. They are seriously just sticking him to 10 years of a "rain check" period to berkeley up again......then they will nail him to the wall.

Believe me, I'm pissed about the outcome, but, I understand it for what it is and why it was done. Otherwise he'd have been drinking again with his buddies and NOT have any probation/parole by the time he was 19. This was a far better sentence when you consider that.

yamaha wrote:

Cotton wrote: If he had been sent to prison, sure he might get out in two years, but he would still have served some time, then been on probation when he got out.

Never count on that........being it was a juvenile case in a juvenile court, after 18yo, it is seriously a crapshoot as to if anything would have been placed longer. They are seriously just sticking him to 10 years of a "rain check" period to berkeley up again......then they will nail him to the wall. Believe me, I'm pissed about the outcome, but, I understand it for what it is and why it was done. Otherwise he'd have been drinking again with his buddies and NOT have any probation/parole by the time he was 19. This was a far better sentence when you consider that.

I still don't know why he wasn't charged as an adult

seems that most states have a mechanism for doing this … assuming the crime is serious enough

and it seems that 4 deaths caused by a drunk driver (who stole the alcohol in the first place) would qualify as serious enough

In reply to wbjones:

Some things we will never understand. Yamaha has a good point, though.

I have a feeling the judge is being as sly as he can while falling within the law. The long probation + leaving the door open for a civil suit + betting on the fact that the kid will reoffended. Means to me the judge is leveraged out and thinks this is what will actually but the kid away for a good long time.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to wbjones: Some things we will never understand. Yamaha has a good point, though.

WB does as well, if he was charged as an adult, there would have been a different outcome including at least 1/3 of that prison term. But, as it was chosen for juvenile court, this is honestly about the best course of action that could have been taken.