Teen who killed four people in drunk-driving accident gets probation due to … “affluenza”

posted at 4:21 pm on December 13, 2013 by Allahpundit

I saw something about “affluenza” on Twitter yesterday and ignored it, assuming it was a portmanteau coined by Salon or Slate for an article about income inequality that the left had collectively decided was clever. Today I googled it and realized why people are talking about it. Friendly advice: If you’re planning on drinking tonight, go ahead and start before you watch the clips. Trust me.

Simple solution here: If the kid can’t function in society because mommy and daddy spoiled him to the point of degeneracy, make them serve his time. At a bare minimum, charge them with child abuse. That’s what the “affluenza” defense is, after all — it’s a plea for mercy in the sentencing stage on the theory that the havoc wreaked by the defendant would never have happened if he hadn’t been victimized as a child himself. Whether the abuse occurred through acts of commission or omission should make no difference. If mom and dad instilled a “no limits” mindset in li’l Ethan so deeply that he can’t be held fully blameworthy for getting drunk and killing four people, then we have a case here involving a grievous injury done to a child. Someone must pay.

If there’s any justice in this world — and there isn’t, as you’re about to see — the victims will bankrupt them with wrongful death suits. The ask right now is $20 million. Beyond that, the lesson for parents (wealthy parents, at least — the poor are screwed here, as usual) is to work hard at turning your child into the most privileged, entitled A-hole possible. If you fail and he somehow turns out to be a decent person and then ends up running someone over, well, then he might have to do time.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Good grief, you really are trying hard to negate his actions, aren’t you?

It’s called cause and effect. The kid gambled and four people lost their lives.

Got any more excuses or hand wringing?

kim roy on December 13, 2013 at 9:21 PM

So, no, you don’t know that he set out to kill these people, you just like implying it for some reason.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Wino on December 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Yes, as i pointed out earlier i’m aware of intoxication manslaughter, a determination of deliberate in the eyes of the law isn’t always deliberate in reality, ‘It’s as if’ he set out to kill someone is far from ‘he set out to kill someone’.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 9:46 PM

So, no, you don’t know that he set out to kill these people, you just like implying it for some reason.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 9:45 PM

You really aren’t that bright, are you?

I’m not sure of the stats and too lazy/can’t be bothered for an obvious issue, but just for discussion say that 1/10 drunk driving incidents cause damage/death. It’s a likelihood and happens with regularity. Do you disagree?

Okay… so by that extension getting into a vehicle drunk you are taking a 1/10 chance you will kill or hurt someone. By making that decision, you (and all these “you” are generic) are not worried that you are running a 1/10 risk of killing someone. So, yes, he set out to kill those people knowing the risk and possibilities. He did not care or felt he was beyond those risks/possibilities.

I have been stating that he did not care about the consequences of his actions. Of course, he did not “choose” to kill these particular people, but knew his actions could harm “someone” and quite obviously did not care.

Hope that cleared it up for you. Not sure why you are choosing to die on this particular hill, but good luck with that.

kim roy on December 13, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Let me rephrase it then: Legally, he admitted to manslaughter. The definition of manslaughter is:

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. (again, emphasis added)

The above quote is from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

So, by his own plea, he admitted to intentionally killing the four deceased. The fact that driving drunk is an unlawful act precludes “involuntary manslaughter” as the charge; hence, the charge was intoxication manslaughter. This means that the intent was actually a product of the alcohol consumption rather than plain ol’ run-of-the-mill stupidity that is usually the cause (playing with a gun, not considering your surroundings when doing something dangerous, etc.).

Whether you agree with the above argument or not, we are either now in agreement, or we can just agree to have differing opinions on the subject.

Wino on December 13, 2013 at 10:02 PM

You really aren’t that bright, are you?

Guess not.

I’m not sure of the stats and too lazy/can’t be bothered for an obvious issue, but just for discussion say that 1/10 drunk driving incidents cause damage/death. It’s a likelihood and happens with regularity.

As we all know there’s nothing a 16 year old enjoys more than looking up stats on drunk driving so there’s no question he knew the risks.

Hope that cleared it up for you. Not sure why you are choosing to die on this particular hill, but good luck with that.

Thanks.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Wino on December 13, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Just have to disagree.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Haven’t read a comment and here’s my take as a Texan. Sue the parents ’til they cry and then sue ‘em for cryin’. Period.

The kid will be in jail the day after they’re broke.

DanMan on December 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Yes, only in capitalist countries do people have drunk driving accidents. /

Your mother must have dropped you on your head quite a bit as a baby. I’m surprised you can string two sentences together.

Doomberg on December 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM

And, “unexpectedly” LFOD comes into the end of a thread to denounce that which pays her bills.
Missed you on all the Ocare threads. Been too selectively busy?

ManWithNoParty on December 13, 2013 at 11:09 PM

I first heard the term “affluenza” on the Rush Limbaugh show about 15 years ago. Sorry, I can’t remember the context, but is was hilarious. Maybe someone else can remind me about that.

I can’t believe this term was actually used in a trial.

This “affluenza” crap is basically an insanity defense for rich kids begging for a get-out-of-jail free card. If he has “condition” that can cause him to kill people he needs to be in a psych ward until he is cured. Maybe cut off his trust funds for about 30 years…

shorebird on December 13, 2013 at 11:15 PM

Your mother must have dropped you on your head quite a bit as a baby. I’m surprised you can string two sentences together.

Doomberg on December 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Well, technically speaking, that wasn’t even one sentence……

GWB on December 13, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Lady justice is NOT blind in America.

See Holder for the number one thug of the land.

Schadenfreude on December 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM

How about the kid and his parents just be forced to sign up for ObamaCare?

Isn’t that a Soylent Green Prep program anyway?

Let em lay down on the table and watch the pretty scenes unfold all around them as they absorb the lethal drugs and then get ground up into that new “meat” that Google is making?

PappyD61 on December 14, 2013 at 12:15 AM

As we all know there’s nothing a 16 year old enjoys more than looking up stats on drunk driving so there’s no question he knew the risks.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM

You really must be a liberal to go to this extent to advocate for this little murderer.

Like I said in my first comment, he must have just woken up from his 16 year coma, got loaded and then drove around.

Because the little saint hadn’t seen a TV ad, picked up a newspaper or anything on the internet to clue into the hazards/issues with drinking and driving.

kim roy on December 14, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You’re off your game tonight. Your arguments are wrong, but they are usually better reasoned than that statement.

DFCtomm on December 14, 2013 at 12:36 AM

…for some reason only known to liberal judges,…
Free Indeed on December 13, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Judge Boyd was appointed by Rick Perry and evidence suggests that she’s pro-life.

eh on December 14, 2013 at 1:38 AM

You’ll find clearbluesky most weekday mornings all bundled up and squeaking alongside traffic with one hand holding his lunchbox and the other on the handlebars on his way to work.

eh on December 14, 2013 at 1:51 AM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

This is just a code word for “evil government” for the left, no actual thought required. I feel like we are back in the early 20th century, when socialism and communism started their insidious siren songs to the “reformers” in response to the stock market boom and subsequent crash. We all know where that path led.

There will always be those who can game the system due to power and money, no matter which government is in place. There will always be people who steal from the collection plate at church. Capitalism is just the best system, sustainable over time, which allows a decent living for the ordinary man, even if his “betters” do keep their thumbs on the scale.

inmypajamas on December 14, 2013 at 1:59 AM

So how did he end up only getting probation?

Bitter Clinger on December 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Because that’s what most juveniles get. People got upset because this same judge sentenced a 14 year old black kid to prison who had hit someone and the person who was hit ended up dying from it, but the only reason he got sent to prison instead of probation/rehab like this kid is because no rehab center would take him and that’s according to the victims mother. So yeah, if a deliberate attack draws probation, accidental deaths are going to draw probation.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Bull. This isn’t the first kid in TX who committed vehicular manslaughter. They were sent to CYA and then prison.

Blake on December 14, 2013 at 3:46 AM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Idiot.

And obsessive mentally ill troll.

farsighted on December 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM

I have heard this term used on Rush’s show in a parody. Who knew it would ever be used successfully as a defense for killing people. Where in the law of that state is this deemed an excuse? The judge needs to be replaced with someone who has common sense.

Kissmygrits on December 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Bull.
Blake on December 14, 2013 at 3:46 AM

Sigh, not bull.

cozmo on December 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Photo: Judge Jean Boyd

http://winteryknight.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/jeanboyd-e1386907011696.jpg?w=406

Yep…this gal probably needs to be removed from the bench !

BigSven has a place for her to sit

BigSven on December 14, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Capitalism.
 
libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

 
Not the -ism I was expecting.
 
Good for you.

rogerb on December 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

I saw something about “affluenza” on Twitter yesterday and ignored it, assuming it was a portmanteau

So strange. I read the word “portmanteau” elsewhere just the other day, just guessed at its meaning. Looked it up this time around. Where was that word when Sarah Palin coined “refudiate”? She was Shakespeare!

A family acquaintance, who was a life-time drunk, killed two people while drunk driving, under suspension. His church and pastor came out in his favor, he was contrite, and served about a year and a half, when a much longer sentence would have been in order. Lifetime driving suspension. Soon after he was released, he was caught drunk driving again.

Moral? To a large degree, you are what you do, and others should act accordingly.

Maya Angelou — ‘The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.’

Paul-Cincy on December 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

I bet the “insanity” defense sounded ridiculous the first time some a$$hat lawyer thought it up and ran it by the judge. Monkey see, monkey do, this “affliction” could very well go viral.

8thAirForce on December 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

This isn’t a case of affluenza. More like bribe-apalooza.

eaglephin on December 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I bet the “insanity” defense sounded ridiculous the first time some a$$hat lawyer thought it up and ran it by the judge. Monkey see, monkey do, this “affliction” could very well go viral.

8thAirForce on December 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

No. The insanity defense has an incredibly long lineage – back to common law, as I understand it. The twisting of it is a fairly modern thing. The concept is simple and just: if you can’t even conceive of right and wrong in relation to the actions for which you are being tried, then you are ‘insane’ for the purposes of the charge. It doesn’t mean ‘wackadoo’ or ‘thinks killing is fun’. It means ‘he can’t understand that what he did was wrong according to the law’. It’s a modern progressive twist on the idea that ‘legally insane’ means ‘crazy’ and he should be treated, instead of locked away.

GWB on December 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

The damn judge should be impeached. It sounds like to me that the young man and his parents need to both serve some time in jail.

SC.Charlie on December 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM

You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Know your rights –Joe Strummer

Pest on December 14, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I hope the four families sue them for every last penny they have. Make them homeless…

Pest on December 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

As opposed to your socialist paradise where party members can do what they what want to the peasants that live outside the protected sections of Havana or pre 90s Moscow.Or maybe you are thinking of the just and happy lands of Mozambique.

Is liberalism a virus or a mental disorder? … We may never know.

BoxHead1 on December 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

The kid may not even know what sex he/she is. How could he/she possibly know right from wrong either?

ndanielson on December 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

if you can’t even conceive of right and wrong in relation to the actions for which you are being tried, GWB on December 14, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Is this really so? I always thought that a person convinced of his own rightness; or ignorant of the wrongness; or constitutionally immune to the question of rightness or wrongness, was still accountable under the law, so long as he actually knew what he was doing.

I thought the insanity defense was that the offender was not in touch with reality, through whatever mechanism, certain delusions or hallucination or sleeping, and that his intent was not at all related to what he was doing: for example, drowning your baby while thinking you’re washing your bowling ball. I believe this was the realm of the insanity defense.

Sanity is a legal term and certainly not a medical one; meaning, as I understand it, not aware of reality at the time. We are all, legally, insane when we are asleep, though not at all necessarily insane when we are awake again.

I have not found much on this case. Was his defense really insanity?

Oh, and I always thought that a portmaneau was a form of 19th-century overcoat, but I could be wrong there, too.

flicker on December 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I hope the four families sue them for every last penny they have. Make them homeless…

Pest on December 14, 2013 at 1:17 PM

It would definitely lessen their affluenza.

ndanielson on December 14, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Pure unadulterated liberalism. You know, anything goes. As long as it’s for the children. Too bad libs are free to be so ignorant.

ndanielson on December 14, 2013 at 2:07 PM

My wife thinks portmaneau is a fine white wine.

flicker on December 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Actually, a portmaneau is an Edwardian, cubbied writing desk. Or a hat. (I forget which.)

All words are subjective.

flicker on December 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

The cure for afflenza is obviously more of the same.

unclesmrgol on December 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Muslim protestors demand restaurants and shops stop selling ‘evil’ alcohol warning them they face 40 lashes if they carry on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523658/Muslim-campaigners-protest-sale-alcohol-popular-East-London-area.html

Why aren’t the brits wholesale slaughtering these people in the streets?

Murphy9 on December 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM

The Benghazi defense for killing four and going Scot free was already taken by Killary….

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 2:34 PM

FWIW portmanteau is a suitcase.

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Based on what I’ve been able to garner from different news stories, and admittedly news stories are the worst source of facts for these types of situations, it seems that the following can be established:

1) The defendant (and companions) stole beer from a Walmart prior to embarking on their deadly venture.
2) The defendant was driving with a BA level well above the legal limit, and was violating the law by drinking and driving at all (without regard to a legal limit, since he was a minor).
3) The defendant hit a bunch of people, killing four, and severely injuring and disabling several (two?) others.
4) The defendant plead guilty to four counts of manslaughter by intoxication and two counts of assault by intoxication causing bodily injury.
5) Here is a list of the elements of the two crimes commited, and the penalties for them: http://www.dwi.com/texas/texas-dwi-penalties/
6) The defendant was tried as a juvenile, rather than as an adult.

My questions:
1) How does being tried as a juvenile rather than as an adult in Texas affect sentencing?
2) Was the judge following sentencing guidelines?
3) Did the judge have discretion when doing so?

The case “feels” wrong – that justice was not done, but it’s hard to see what went wrong without all the facts. It is possible that the judge was following the law and gave the harshest sentence she could in light of any mitigating circumstances (I’m making no judgement here, just laying it out). It is also possible that the judge used too much discretion, and gave a too-light sentence, which my gut tells me is what happened.

My tentative conclusion is that either the judge, the system, or both screwed up, but I don’t have enough facts to decide which.

Othniel on December 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

We had men at 14 joint the military during WW II. I personally knew a man who join the Navy at 14 and two weeks before his 17th birthday was found out and discharged only to return into the Navy after he turned 17. I have met men at 14 and boys at 40. This thug teen ager should be put away for a long time regardless of the sway his parents have.

mixplix on December 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Lunatic.

CWchangedhisNicagain on December 14, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Because the little saint hadn’t seen a TV ad, picked up a newspaper or anything on the internet to clue into the hazards/issues with drinking and driving.

kim roy on December 14, 2013 at 12:29 AM

He knew exactly what he was doing, and that it was wrong, and what the possible consequences were and did it anyway. He killed and injured people. Does anyone think his behavior will improve? In my opinion taking the lives of other people in this manner forfeits one’s own.

He will kill others and the lack of punishment will encourage others to act like him or worse.

dogsoldier on December 14, 2013 at 5:30 PM

A Baytown teenager sentenced to eight years in custody for a deadly accident told a judge on Thursday he could have prevented the crash that killed his brother and three friends.

Bobby Wayne Davis, 16, wept as he heard his punishment, later telling state District Judge Michael Schneider, “I’m sorry.”

Davis was driving a stolen Jeep Cherokee that slammed into the side of a train about 4 a.m. June 14, 2007, killing his younger brother, Austin Davis, 14; Loral Moyers, 12; her cousin Macy Moyers, 14; and Colette Windham, 14.

….

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Baytown-boy-tells-judge-he-s-sorry-for-wreck-that-1645134.php

He was sentenced as a juvenile and was looking at 20 years. The story says there is a mandatory 2 year sentence for juvies but I don’t know if that applies to each count consecutively or concurrently.

Blake on December 14, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Obama’s ATF is entrapping mentally disabled teens, giving pot to minors, & luring guns near schools

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/69862821537/obamas-atf-is-entrapping-mentally-disabled-teens

President Obama’s Justice Department is running headlong into yet another scandal involving the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. With eerie echoes of Fast and Furious, ATF has been operating elaborate entrapment stings targeting teens in drug and firearm busts across the country.

The details of the operations are astounding, including ATF paying one mentally handicapped teen, $150 to get a neck tattoo of a giant squid smoking a joint, the logo of a fake pot shop that ATF set up to entrap customers in Milwaukee.

from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Key, who is mentally disabled, was swayed.

He and his friend, Marquis Glover, liked Squid’s. It was their hangout. The 19-year-olds spent many afternoons there playing Xbox and chatting with the owner, “Squid,” and the store clerks.

So they took the money and got the ink etched on their necks, tentacles creeping down to their collarbones.

It would be months before the young men learned the whole thing was a setup. The guys running Squid’s were actually undercover ATF agents conducting a sting to get guns away from criminals and drugs off the street.

The two teenagers didn’t find out that their new tattoos were advertisements for a phony pot shop until they were booked into jail by the Federal investigators.

Murphy9 on December 14, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Look, everyone who died deserved to die. Let the kid go!

GW_SS-Delta on December 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Look, everyone who died deserved to die. Let the kid go!

GW_SS-Delta on December 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Yeah! They were going to eventually.

Connected Skakel Ethan just expedited the process…

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Let him go.

And then post his address. Same as libfreeasanidiot would do to gun owners.

Let Darwin do his thing.

a5minmajor on December 14, 2013 at 6:39 PM

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Yeah, and every innocent bystander on the side of the road who died was a poor minority anyway… and who needs good-to-do youth pastors.

GW_SS-Delta on December 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM

The perp will probably deliver a thank-you Christmas package of small unmarked bills to Judge Boyd while driving along blasted out of his gourd, as usual.

Her-onner probably had best choose not to be working out in the garden or within a quarter mile of the street when her dear fwend spoiled Ethan decides to swerve by…..

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM

If I offend anyone with the following post I apologize and will accept being banned on this forum but this hits too close to home even 31 years later.

This BASTARD KILLED FOUR PEOPLE !!!!! His weapon of choice was an automobile. At least with a gun he could only kill one person with one shot. Sympathy for him ! Bullshit.

My mom, dad and I were almost killed by a damned drunk driver on US 78 coming into Memphis, TN 1:00 AM Christmas 1982. He pulled out in front of us going 15 MPH in a 55 MPH speed zone. It took all of the braking power of the car and driving skill of mom to save all our lives. We had a CB radio in the car for emergencies and this was it. We contacted a volunteer REACT organization with that CB radio. They contaacted the Memphis police and we safely followed him for five miles communicating his location. The Memphis police had to run him off of the road under an overpass for I -240.

As for the affluenza excuse, BULLSHIT !!!!

hamradio on December 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

hamradio on December 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Not likely to be banned here for posting personal experiences emphatically.

As others also have stated this judge has given the connected perp future chances to kill again.

73s

viking01 on December 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM

“White Privilege”

/Wait and watch.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Is liberalism a virus or a mental disorder? … We may never know.

BoxHead1 on December 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I’ve concluded it is most likely demonic possession. And I’m not kidding.

pannw on December 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Simple solution here: If the kid can’t function in society because mommy and daddy spoiled him to the point of degeneracy, make them serve his time.

A kid going to jail for something a parent has done isn’t sensible; neither is sending a parent to jail for something a kid has done.

Someone must pay.

Yes, and someone(s) certainly will. A second lawsuit has been filed by the family of the youth minister. Both lawsuits name dad, mom, Affluenza, and the parents’ company as defendants.

Affluenza was driving a truck owned by the company and the insurance on said truck was certainly paid by same. The company will be responsible for claims above the insurance policy cap.

If the kid riding in the bed of the truck gets $20 million, the claims for those killed should rise from there. Does the company have enough liquid assets to cover the claims? Can it survive after paying said claims? If it does survive, is any underwriter willing to risk money on an owner capable of making piss-poor decisions and provide future insurance? I’m thinking the company has a going concern crisis on its hands.

Of course, none of the above addresses the civil liability the court might find against the dad, the mom, and Affluenza personally.

Speaking of Affluenza, since he doesn’t know right from wrong, 10 years is a long time for him to not violate the terms of his probation. Given his track record, he’ll do it sooner rather than later and find himself a member of a Texas’ penitentiary in due time.

Interestingly, the civil cases filed now total 5, and the stupid defense psychologist regrets using the term Affluenza to describe a kid we used to call a spoiled brat. He only came to this conclusion after cashing dad’s check.

rukiddingme on December 15, 2013 at 2:20 AM

I’m sure it’s been said before but this isn’t an “Affluenza DEFENSE.”

HE HAD ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY.

This was the sentencing phase….So it’s less “Defense” and more “Mitigation”…NOT will he be punished, but to what extent?

I’m not sure that a long prison sentence is going to do much to him, rich or poor. So, I don’t hold to throw away the key.

As tot he fellow “Clearbluesky” (???) you’re wrong….whilst it’s NOT murder, it’s not involuntary manslaughter…he did something he knew to be illegal AND dangerous…He did not INTEND to kill four people, but he did. And it was well within his capacity to have understood this before he acted….

You can’t say, “Oh I never intended for the crate of dynamite I planted at the football field to kill ANYONE. I just meant for it to go off as a big, showy post-game prank.” Sorry, a reasonable person would have understood that dynamite is very dangerous and detonating it is a dangerous, life-threatening act…and so YES you get Voluntary Manslaughter.

Same here, this guy had to KNOW DUI was both illegal and dangerous and yet he proceeded to drink and drive impaired. So it’s true he didn’t INTEND to kill someone, he did and it doesn’t take a well-developed sense of law and morals to grasp this.

JFKY on December 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

.22 cal behind the left ear. Mom. Dad. Sniveling Twink Son.

Prob. Solved.

thejackal on December 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

thejackal on December 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

What do you get for jay-walking in Jackal World? Shouldn’t you have a /sarc tag on that?

JFKY on December 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM

The surviving family members should each get 15 minutes alone with the little creep.

bitsy on December 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Simple solution here: If the kid can’t function in society because mommy and daddy spoiled him to the point of degeneracy, make them serve his time. At a bare minimum, charge them with child abuse woeful neglect.

Fixed it for you. It is “neglect” and “irresponsibility”.
Had I been the parent(s), I would have said:
“We all make choices son, now you need to suffer and live with the consequences of your actions.”
But, I had decent parents.
Having dealt with more than one case similar this over the decades, I can attest to the fact that wealthy ‘rents can get Junior off of pert’neer any charge the Prosecution can throw at them. One particular, and similar, case comes to mind. The perp even admitted to consuming copious amounts of alcohol and Valium before crashing into and killing 2 people, but Mommy and Daddy had enough ca$h to buy the best criminal defense attorney, shrink, and “investigator” in the County.
As for “affluenza” it works most of the time, especially if you are related to the privileged Kennedy family and others of their ilk.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM

My post won’t show up? Hmmmmmmmmm …
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 15, 2013 at 10:38 AM

FINALLY!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM

If you are going to punish the parents instead of the killer, then every little gangbanger killer should go free.

Blake on December 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM

If you are going to punish the parents instead of the killer, then every little gangbanger killer should go free.

Blake on December 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM

The parents of Tucson’s Gerald Loughner should dämn sure be charged.
They knew he was a Paranoid Schizophrenic, they knew he had stopped taking his meds, and they KNEW he had access to firearms.
THAT is criminal neglect and irresponsibility. They could have had him committed any time they desired, but noooooo … that would be “unfair”.
Tell that to his victims.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

They could have had him committed any time they desired, but noooooo … that would be “unfair”.
Tell that to his victims.

Uh ACTUALLY, more than likely “NO, they couldn’t”…He was 23 at the time of the shooting. A legal adult. UNLESS they could demonstrate he was a threat to himself and others, no they could NOT INVOLUNTARILY commit him.

And NO, being a schizophrenic off your med’s does NOT make you ipso facto a threat to himself and others.

The streets are, if not full of at least well populated with, the mentally ill, off their med’s.

In the months leading up to the shooting, Loughner’s parents became increasingly alarmed at their son’s behavior at one point resorting to disabling his car every night in order to keep him home. At one point his father confiscated his son’s shotgun and both urged him to get help

(Via Wiki)

IF they did not know of the hand gun, exactly what more do you want them to do? I guess they could have turned him out on the streets, but given the legal climate today please tell me what more you do, with a loved one? An adult, loved one…..

JFKY on December 15, 2013 at 1:45 PM

IF they did not know of the hand gun, exactly what more do you want them to do? I guess they could have turned him out on the streets, but given the legal climate today please tell me what more you do, with a loved one? An adult, loved one…..

JFKY on December 15, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Not a heck of a lot.

There’s a lot of people wandering around who probably shouldn’t be. We can call the police and disable vehicles and plead to take meds, but until they do something “dangerous” (case in point Amanda Byrnes finally had to set a fire in a stranger’s driveway to get help) there’s absolutely nothing that can be done.

That’s good and bad. You don’t want people institutionalized or harassed because someone says they’re looney tunes. People would be doing that out of malice because they have a grudge.

However, people who need help don’t get it until they do something dangerous – from lighting a public fire to killing a dozen people.

So all we can legally do is call the police repeatedly and hope they catch the person at Amanda Byrne level rather than Loughner level.

kim roy on December 15, 2013 at 3:10 PM

thejackal on December 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

What do you get for jay-walking in Jackal World? Shouldn’t you have a /sarc tag on that?

No. And jay-walking is legal in JackalWorld® FYI.

What isn’t legal is walking into a courtroom and claiming you’re too Kardashianed to behave like an adult.

You get the DP for that. So do the ‘rents. And your biotch lawyer gets pruned in the pantyhose.

thejackal on December 15, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Follow this kid. His life is done. All the $ in the world won’t help.

StevC on December 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Capitalism.

libtardie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Was it Capitalism that caused Grandpa Obama to crash his car 3 times driving drunk? He killed a guy one time, lost his legs the second time and mercifully killed his crippled deadbeat loser self the 3rd time by crashing his car into a tree blind drunk.

Buttercup on December 16, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I’m surprised by all this class warfare.
Allah, are you incapable of sympathy for the children of the wealthy job creators?
And this cheering for a lawsuit to bankrupt the parents…what happened to tort reform?
This poor kid…suffering through years of scorn by polophobics and blingism.
He just needs a hug. A $450,000 hug.

verbaluce on December 13, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Liberals are too dumb to understand equality under the law…

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” — Leviticus 19:15

dominigan on December 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

As we all know there’s nothing a 16 year old enjoys more than looking up stats on drunk driving so there’s no question he knew the risks.

clearbluesky on December 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM

that is not and never has been a standard. its based on knowledge a reasonable person would have. and a reasonable person, even at age 16 knows that being drunk and driving at a high rate of speed can cause a fatal accident. thats all that matters

chasdal on December 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

The parents of Tucson’s Gerald Loughner should dämn sure be charged.
They knew he was a Paranoid Schizophrenic, they knew he had stopped taking his meds, and they KNEW he had access to firearms.
THAT is criminal neglect and irresponsibility. They could have had him committed any time they desired, but noooooo … that would be “unfair”.
Tell that to his victims.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

dude, read some history. the libs stopped involuntary committals back when carter was president. the standard is so ridiculously high that it cant be met.

chasdal on December 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’m sure it’s been said before but this isn’t an “Affluenza DEFENSE.”

HE HAD ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY.

This was the sentencing phase….So it’s less “Defense” and more “Mitigation”…NOT will he be punished, but to what extent?

JFKY on December 15, 2013 at 9:25 AM

that part keeps getting kicked to the curb. this was a sentence agreed on by the DA’s office and approved by the judge so the blame should be spread around to both those offices.

chasdal on December 16, 2013 at 3:41 PM

As we all know there’s nothing a 16 year old enjoys more than looking up stats on drunk driving so there’s no question he knew the risks.

Most people with a brain are aware that drinking and driving do not mix. Either someone failed him or you are incredibly naive. Either way, he should be charged and there should be zero tolerance for this behavior in society. The fact that people are bringing in some sort of defense is mind blowing. No one made him drive drunk. He is completely responsible. People can blame the parents too, but really, he is 16. He is not a toddler. Stop coddling him.

RDE2010 on December 16, 2013 at 6:51 PM

RDE2010 on December 16, 2013 at 6:51 PM

If simply knowing an activity could harm someone means you set out to harm others when engaging in that activity then every person who gets in a car wreck, drunk or sober, that ends in death is guilty of murder. And i’m not coddling him, just not joining the calls to have him punished more than others would be for no reason other than his parents are rich.

clearbluesky on December 16, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Capitalism.

libfreeordie on December 13, 2013 at 10:19 PM

On Obama’s watch.

QED

Good Lt on December 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Is liberalism a virus or a mental disorder? … We may never know.

BoxHead1 on December 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Or a mental disorder caused by a virus…

jimver on December 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I’ve concluded it is most likely demonic possession. And I’m not kidding.

pannw on December 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM

The jokes write themselves.

/Friedkin

thejackal on December 19, 2013 at 6:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3