1. Affluenza

Usually I'd reserve this for the WTF thread but I think this deserves it's own.

'Affluenza' in Texas incites anger, lawsuits and call for jail time - latimes.com

Its literally the practice of saying because you are wealthy you don't have to go to jail, not even the buy your way out defense, but using it as the context of your defense.

I agree that the kid doesn't understand consequences very well, which is why he should spend 20 years in jail, Then he can appreciate what consequences his actions brought about.

The judge needs to be disbarred and sent to prison, and investigated for corruption.

The psychologist should be publicly lambasted for appreciating that the kid didn't understand the consequences, and conversely saying because he didn't he shouldn't suffer for it. How do you
teach consequences without using the correct punishment for them?

There should be a lot of public outrage for this I'd think.

2. Let them eat cake syndrome .

3. Yeah quite enraging, hopefully the kid's familly get sued for every penny they've got and then they can't afford the holiday therapy for the kid and subsequently he'll go to jail :
Victims' families file multimillion dollar lawsuits again affluenza teen

4. And the interview with the psychologist is so infuriating :

5. Even if they get every dime from his family, that's trading lives for money. That's like German Wergild or something nuts, honestly the Judge infuriates me the most. He is the god damn single expectation of integrity, he needs to go to prison with the kid at this point--there's no way around it.

6. *she even

7. Certainly one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen. Texas is a fucking train wreck. No integrity anywhere.

8. Iirc the same judge put away a black teenager for 15+ years for a similar crime. Fun story all around.

9. Disgusting.

10. This is what happens when you have a legal system.

11. I believe the proper punishment would be to let the victim's families each take one shot at running the kid over with a truck. Only one try each, though.

Drinking optional.

12. Unless you have never driven drunk in your life, especially as a teen I don't want to hear all this pontification.

Family is going to lose all their money, and the kid gets one chance, just one chance to turn his life around or he goes to jail. And he's the one who has to live with all this. I think for some reason people go around assuming he's smug and happy for getting off.

Says more about those people than him. It's justice, not vengeance.

13. I remember on the news when this story broke they mentioned that as he ran from the crash scene leaving his friends to die or get arrested or whatever, he yelled back "I'm Ethan Couch I'll get you out of this!" or something. Who knows if that really happened. idk, if he had been poor and black that shit definitely would not have gone down. This definitely was not justice.

14. Originally Posted by Jait
Unless you have never driven drunk in your life, especially as a teen I don't want to hear all this pontification.

Family is going to lose all their money, and the kid gets one chance, just one chance to turn his life around or he goes to jail. And he's the one who has to live with all this. I think for some reason people go around assuming he's smug and happy for getting off.

Says more about those people than him. It's justice, not vengeance.
The very defense is that he doesn't understand what he fucking did. You're saying he has to live it down they're saying (his defense) he doesn't have to because he doesn't understand what that fucking means.

Plus fuck you, Justice is a fake word as I've explained a million times.

15. Originally Posted by Jait
Unless you have never driven drunk in your life, especially as a teen I don't want to hear all this pontification.

Family is going to lose all their money, and the kid gets one chance, just one chance to turn his life around or he goes to jail. And he's the one who has to live with all this. I think for some reason people go around assuming he's smug and happy for getting off.

Says more about those people than him. It's justice, not vengeance.
Seriously wtf dude? Who gives two shits whether or not they've personally driven drunk? The issue here is any of us that would have been caught doing what he did would be rotting in prison right now. You take risks you pay the price if those risks don't pan out in your favor. His consequence was taken away by a retarded judge who wants to salvage his life. Too bad 4 innocent people and their families don't get a second chance to salvage their lives. This kid deserves death, plain and simple.

16. Originally Posted by ObservantBastard
This kid deserves death, plain and simple.
Death seems a bit extreme. Assuming intent matters, he didn't intend to kill anyone, though he callously endangered the lives of everyone around him by knowingly driving drunk. I'd guess somewhere between 10-30 years in prison is appropriate, depending on how he handles himself both now and during his prison stay (assuming he got the sentence he deserved).

I hope the kid's family is financially crippled by the settlements. The environment that fostered his behavior is insane. His father gave him a secluded home to live in by himself, a car 3 years before he could drive, and money to buy drugs and booze. Sick fuck.

Also, not only did he kill 4 people trying to change a tire, he seriously injured 2 of the passengers in his truck. One has a serious brain injury an has been in a coma since the accident. To have no actual consequence for this (a few years in a spa isn't a consequence) is the absolute worst message society could possibly send to someone like this.

17. How the fuck does driving drunk not immediately give you the idea that he would kill someone? Drunk driving isnt illegal because you might only get into a fender bender, it's illegal because a vehicle is also a several thousand pounds of fast moving violent death if operated improperly. Screw intent, burn this kid at the fucking stake.

18. Originally Posted by Big Phoenix
This is what happens when you are born black.
FTFY

19. It's retarded and I can't believe how swept to the side this shit is. The judge needs to go to prison, she can't be allowed to get away with this bull shit.

20. Originally Posted by Jait
Unless you have never driven drunk in your life, especially as a teen I don't want to hear all this pontification.

Family is going to lose all their money, and the kid gets one chance, just one chance to turn his life around or he goes to jail. And he's the one who has to live with all this. I think for some reason people go around assuming he's smug and happy for getting off.

Says more about those people than him. It's justice, not vengeance.
I absolutely NEVER drove drunk as a teenager. And we do not know the family will lose their money, they could win that just like they won this case. What then? Will you feel the four victims were represented well?
Since he didn't "understand" the consequences I really doubt he is all broken up about this. The guy deserves jail.

21. Donte Stallworth ( NFL) had a similar situation come up a few years ago.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=7867036

22. Originally Posted by Jait
Unless you have never driven drunk in your life, especially as a teen I don't want to hear all this pontification.

Family is going to lose all their money, and the kid gets one chance, just one chance to turn his life around or he goes to jail. And he's the one who has to live with all this. I think for some reason people go around assuming he's smug and happy for getting off.

Says more about those people than him. It's justice, not vengeance.
Never drove drunk.

And the big problem I have with the verdict is the 'kid gets one chance or he goes to jail' bit seems like bullshit. If you can drunk drive and kill a family without a harsh penalty, why wouldn't you expect to escape a harsh penalty for failure to do whatever bullshit the judge ordered? All I can hope is that something in the legalese allows him to be retried with the same charges and he gets a different judge that isn't paid off or has his head up his ass.

23. I really hate my parents for not being rich and ignoring me as a child. Think of all the things I was never able to get away with.

24. Never driven drunk in my life. This is such an absolute bullshit verdict and I can't believe more people aren't upset about this.

Jait that may possibly be the worst post I've ever read

25. Originally Posted by Haast
Death seems a bit extreme. Assuming intent matters, he didn't intend to kill anyone, though he callously endangered the lives of everyone around him by knowingly driving drunk. I'd guess somewhere between 10-30 years in prison is appropriate, depending on how he handles himself both now and during his prison stay (assuming he got the sentence he deserved).

I hope the kid's family is financially crippled by the settlements. The environment that fostered his behavior is insane. His father gave him a secluded home to live in by himself, a car 3 years before he could drive, and money to buy drugs and booze. Sick fuck.

Also, not only did he kill 4 people trying to change a tire, he seriously injured 2 of the passengers in his truck. One has a serious brain injury an has been in a coma since the accident. To have no actual consequence for this (a few years in a spa isn't a consequence) is the absolute worst message society could possibly send to someone like this.
It was a little bit hyperbolic, but I don't think removing this family's lineage from the gene pool would be such a bad thing...

26. Originally Posted by Haast
Death seems a bit extreme. Assuming intent matters, he didn't intend to kill anyone, though he callously endangered the lives of everyone around him by knowingly driving drunk. I'd guess somewhere between 10-30 years in prison is appropriate, depending on how he handles himself both now and during his prison stay (assuming he got the sentence he deserved).

I hope the kid's family is financially crippled by the settlements. The environment that fostered his behavior is insane. His father gave him a secluded home to live in by himself, a car 3 years before he could drive, and money to buy drugs and booze. Sick fuck.

Also, not only did he kill 4 people trying to change a tire, he seriously injured 2 of the passengers in his truck. One has a serious brain injury an has been in a coma since the accident. To have no actual consequence for this (a few years in a spa isn't a consequence) is the absolute worst message society could possibly send to someone like this.
Driving drunk = intent to kill. Id have no problem taking the little shit out back and putting him down.

27. Originally Posted by ObservantBastard
It was a little bit hyperbolic, but I don't think removing this family's lineage from the gene pool would be such a bad thing...
The kid is fucked up enough that it probably wouldn't be a loss.

Originally Posted by Big Phoenix
Driving drunk = intent to kill. Id have no problem taking the little shit out back and putting him down.
It's arguable in this case since the kid knew he was drunk and still piled a ton of unrestrained people in his pickup and sped around recklessly. That's why it's especially fucked he is not being punished.

28. Can't get to that article, getting a 502 error. Give me a TL;DR

29. tldr: parents are faggots

30. Originally Posted by Kuriin
This is what happens when you are born poor.
FTFY.

31. be rich.

32. Or die trying.

33. American Dream

34. What bothers me is that, if affluenza is real (which is totally bullshit, but I digress), then why are we not punishing the people who GAVE him the affluenza? Lock up his parents for 20 years, each.

35. Yeah, kid was 16, those parents are at least partially responsible.

36. Being affluent has nothing to do with not understanding the consequences of your actions nor does it have anything to do with whether or not you should be held responsible for something.

It doesn't matter what your financial situation is, if you've never been held accountable for your actions you're going to be a shithead. If you grow up in a household where stealing is the everyday norm and encouraged and "fuck them if they don't like it, you're bigger than them, what are they going to do?" guess what, you're going to steal and you are going to grow up thinking it's OK. If your parents never punish you you'll never learn that every action has a consequence. This has nothing to do with how much money your family has.

If you live in a society where people are ignorant of the health risks associated with smoking, and everyone around you smokes, you'll probably smoke without ever knowing the consequences. Parents are responsible for teaching their kids accountability regardless of status.

That in and of itself is the biggest reason this entire verdict and "affluenza" defense is horse shit. Just look at the rape epidemic in Africa.

The legal system just excused shitty, absentee parenting because these people have money. Not every rich kid is a worthless piece of shit but if this is precedent, every single kid who grew up in an affluent family is now able to pretend they didn't know what they were doing, however the impoverished will never be able to make the same claim because... well there is no reason for the disconnect. It's just absolutely retarded pseudo crackpot psychology.

37. I'm really poor so I don't understand responsibility or circumstance. I eat roaches ffs.

38. Originally Posted by Big Phoenix
Driving drunk = intent to kill. Id have no problem taking the little shit out back and putting him down.
Oh, please. The fanaticism about drunk driving has become goddamn ridiculous. It's not about public safety anymore, just about the demonization of alcohol consumption in general. There's a whole list of things that you can do in a car that are just as dangerous or more dangerous that people do all the time, but because it's not related to evil evil booze, nobody has this attitude about any of those.

I work the night shift. When I was getting used to it, I drove home a few times so tired I fell asleep at the wheel. During those times, I was more of a danger to everyone on the road than all but the worst of the drunks, but I can tell people about this and receive nothing more than mild censure at worst. Some people even have sympathy. Then there's texting while driving. Not only have studies shown that this is many times more dangerous than DUI, but there have been multiple high-profile accidents that resulted in a lot of deaths. It's also much easier to avoid doing than driving under the influence, and of course much easier to avoid driving home tired after working a bunch of hours. But because it's not related to EVIL alcohol consumption, it's not even illegal in many states, and in the others it's just equivalent to a speeding ticket. Nobody really cares if you do it, either.

I'm very skeptical of anyone who claims they've never driven under the influence unless they don't drink at all or very rarely. 0.08 BAC is very easy to hit, everyone metabolizes alcohol at different rates and it can even vary wildly in the same person. If you drink enough sometimes you're still at this level even after going to sleep and waking up in the morning, I'd bet quite a few of Monday morning commuters are still technically "drunk" from the previous night.

39. Also, I really should point out that the kid didn't "get off" in a legal sense, he was convicted. The judge just gave him a super-lenient sentence. This type of thing is going to happen from time to time when you give judges as much leeway in sentencing as we do. What do you want to do to fix it? Mandatory minimum sentences have a pretty poor track record when it comes to fairness for the poor and minorities, and implementing binding sentencing guidelines is actually unconstitutional. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines used to be binding, but the Supreme Court struck this down.

40. This was an unconscionable decision on the judges part. A friend of mine stupidly drove drunk one night and crashed his truck into a tree. He didn't hurt anyone (even he was OK), there was nobody else in the car with him but he was pretty far over the legal limit. He was also driving without a license but from a different offense. He spent a year in jail.

41. In what world are restless driving and texting while driving not a big deal? Divots exist precisely for the reason of keeping people awake and not driving off the fucking road. You're even told if you're passing out while driving to pull over and nap. Officer will come to your window and just make sure you're not drunk, otherwise you're fine. And texting and driving is the dumbest fucking thing in the world, and the penalties are rising across the country because of it.

42. Oh, please. The fanaticism about drunk driving has become goddamn ridiculous. It's not about public safety anymore, just about the demonization of alcohol consumption in general. There's a whole list of things that you can do in a car that are just as dangerous or more dangerous that people do all the time, but because it's not related to evil evil booze, nobody has this attitude about any of those.
name one.

EDIT your post sounds like you are driving drunk and texting.

43. Originally Posted by jooka
EDIT your post sounds like you are driving drunk and texting.
This coming from jooka? Is this real life?

44. How many DUI/DWIs do you have Xequecal?

45. Originally Posted by Big Phoenix
How many DUI/DWIs do you have Xequecal?
I don't have any. I've never driven balls out drunk, I just can't say for sure I've never ever driven at 0.08.

46. You realize this kid wasnt a .08, right? You also realize the kid was drunk AND using drugs, right?

47. Originally Posted by Xequecal
Oh, please. The fanaticism about drunk driving has become goddamn ridiculous. It's not about public safety anymore, just about the demonization of alcohol consumption in general. There's a whole list of things that you can do in a car that are just as dangerous or more dangerous that people do all the time, but because it's not related to evil evil booze, nobody has this attitude about any of those.

I work the night shift. When I was getting used to it, I drove home a few times so tired I fell asleep at the wheel. During those times, I was more of a danger to everyone on the road than all but the worst of the drunks, but I can tell people about this and receive nothing more than mild censure at worst. Some people even have sympathy. Then there's texting while driving. Not only have studies shown that this is many times more dangerous than DUI, but there have been multiple high-profile accidents that resulted in a lot of deaths. It's also much easier to avoid doing than driving under the influence, and of course much easier to avoid driving home tired after working a bunch of hours. But because it's not related to EVIL alcohol consumption, it's not even illegal in many states, and in the others it's just equivalent to a speeding ticket. Nobody really cares if you do it, either.

I'm very skeptical of anyone who claims they've never driven under the influence unless they don't drink at all or very rarely. 0.08 BAC is very easy to hit, everyone metabolizes alcohol at different rates and it can even vary wildly in the same person. If you drink enough sometimes you're still at this level even after going to sleep and waking up in the morning, I'd bet quite a few of Monday morning commuters are still technically "drunk" from the previous night.
0.2 % of drivers are driving drunk yet drunk drivers cause 33% of fatalities from accidents. Yeah the penalties for driving buzzed are harsh but it's a serious problem.

48. Did we really have somebody "support" drunk driving because you could do other things worse in a car? For real?

For the record since you said you can't believe that we all don't drive under the influence, I personally never have.

Want to know why? Because I can control myself quite easily into drinking NOTHING when I need to drive. You went off on how complicated it is to do the math and metabolizing is different and all kinds of other bullshit. The math of 0 drinks when you need to drive is pretty damn simple.

I think you are just an alcoholic.

49. Affluenza is when you have already VP decked out P99 toon, but want another decked out alt at the expense of other non-TMO members killing Phara Dar.

50. Originally Posted by suineg
Did we really have somebody "support" drunk driving because you could do other things worse in a car? For real?

For the record since you said you can't believe that we all don't drive under the influence, I personally never have.

Want to know why? Because I can control myself quite easily into drinking NOTHING when I need to drive. You went off on how complicated it is to do the math and metabolizing is different and all kinds of other bullshit. The math of 0 drinks when you need to drive is pretty damn simple.

I think you are just an alcoholic.
I don't "support" drunk driving, I just took exception to his assertion that it constitutes intent tonkill. That DUI is somehow worse than all the other irresponsible things you could possibly do that get someone killed that it should be the exception and count as murder instead of manslaughter. I also think this kid should go to prison, but executing him is ridiculous.

51. Originally Posted by Xequecal
I don't "support" drunk driving, I just took exception to his assertion that it constitutes intent tonkill. That DUI is somehow worse than all the other irresponsible things you could possibly do that get someone killed that it should be the exception and count as murder instead of manslaughter. I also think this kid should go to prison, but executing him is ridiculous.
It does equate to intent to kill because you could have just not drank at all, called a cab, called a friend, shit almost anything.

It is worse than almost anything else you can do in the car because you know ahead of time you need to make the right decision and you didn't. There isn't a person in the USA that doesn't know "drunk driving is bad". I mean come on now.

52. Originally Posted by suineg
It does equate to intent to kill because you could have just not drank at all, called a cab, called a friend, shit almost anything.

It is worse than almost anything else you can do in the car because you know ahead of time you need to make the right decision and you didn't. There isn't a person in the USA that doesn't know "drunk driving is bad". I mean come on now.
I disagree. Texting and driving is the example I used because its clearly and obviously much easier to avoid doing. There's no possibility for confusion at all.

Also, I'm not trying to say that because texting is worse, that DUI is somehow OK. But the fact is, if this kid had instead had his face glued to his iPhone when he wiped out this family and received this sentence, no one would really care. It certainly wouldn't make the front page of CNN with people calling for his head. This is despite the fact that texting and driving has been shown to be more dangerous than DUI. This logical disconnect is a problem.

Also, in regards to your other post, I'm not skeptical when people say they don't habitually drive under the influence. I'm skeptical when they claim they've never done it once in their entire life, even in their stupid teenage years. I think this is an important point to make when people start saying we need to execute drunk drivers, because at that point we need to execute almost everyone.

53. Pretty sure states have started giving out manslaughter for texting and driving in these kinds of situations also.

Execution for drunk driving is stupid. How ever probation for mass killing is more so .

54. Originally Posted by Xequecal
I don't "support" drunk driving, I just took exception to his assertion that it constitutes intent tonkill. That DUI is somehow worse than all the other irresponsible things you could possibly do that get someone killed that it should be the exception and count as murder instead of manslaughter. I also think this kid should go to prison, but executing him is ridiculous.
Tuco just gave you real talk about why it is worse than other irresponsible things you can do. Other things are bad, fo sho. DUI is the worst, testably. Maybe driving while blind is worse, idk, I wasn't able to find data on that.

Also I think "intent" in the legal sense doesn't necessarily pair up with the real definition. Like, he didn't intend to kill people so much as he had absolutely no regard for the lives of other humans. There is more evidence than just the fact that he drove drunk to back this up. But that is definitely part of it.

Executing anyone is stupid, much less this kid. Pretty sure that was just hyperbole. But he should be in prison most definitely.

55. Originally Posted by suineg
It does equate to intent to kill because you could have just not drank at all, called a cab, called a friend, shit almost anything.

It is worse than almost anything else you can do in the car because you know ahead of time you need to make the right decision and you didn't. There isn't a person in the USA that doesn't know "drunk driving is bad". I mean come on now.
Let's tone it down with the righteous indignation shall we? You know what intent actually means right?

56. I don't even get Xeq's argument. The kid was well above the 0.08. There is a big difference being blackout drunk and right at the threshold. Even the 0.08 is sort of assinine given such variability amongst people, and if anything should be lower, or google can hurry the hell up with KITT

57. Originally Posted by chaos
Tuco just gave you real talk about why it is worse than other irresponsible things you can do. Other things are bad, fo sho. DUI is the worst, testably. Maybe driving while blind is worse, idk, I wasn't able to find data on that.

Also I think "intent" in the legal sense doesn't necessarily pair up with the real definition. Like, he didn't intend to kill people so much as he had absolutely no regard for the lives of other humans. There is more evidence than just the fact that he drove drunk to back this up. But that is definitely part of it.

Executing anyone is stupid, much less this kid. Pretty sure that was just hyperbole. But he should be in prison most definitely.
No he should be executed.

58. Originally Posted by ZyyzYzzy
I don't even get Xeq's argument. The kid was well above the 0.08. There is a big difference being blackout drunk and right at the threshold. Even the 0.08 is sort of assinine given such variability amongst people, and if anything should be lower, or google can hurry the hell up with KITT
Yeah, in this case the kid blew a mind-blowing 0.24 and that was 3 hours AFTER the incident. He was ridiculously shitcanned. He was also going 70 in a 30 when he wrecked. In my opinion, he was so reckless an argument could be made for intent.

However, stepping away from this incident, I think texting while driving is nearly as dangerous and irresponsible as driving buzzed (at or near the 0.08 limit). It shows even more disregard, because you might not realize you are around 0.08 but you made the conscious decision to text while driving. However, driving staggering, slurry drunk is by far worse than texting.

59. Originally Posted by Khane
Let's tone it down with the righteous indignation shall we? You know what intent actually means right?
Yeah intent is making a conscious decision to do something despite knowing it is wrong when it comes to this conversation.

It means it isn't something like eating a burger and ketchup dripping out causing you to swerve a little. There is a huge leap from the myriad of dangerous things you can do and consciously driving with alcohol in your system.

It has a lot to do with the whole attitude though where people brag about how they can handle their liquor or that it's too complicated to figure out their BAC manually. I have seen way too many people at an event do some quick napkin math or in their head to figure out if they think their BAC is too much. Just do not drive at that point, ever. It is really that simple.

60. I kind of want to get drunk and be handed a shotgun and see what happens. It should be ok as long as I don't understand right and wrong.

61. Originally Posted by Noodleface
I kind of want to get drunk and be handed a shotgun and see what happens. It should be ok as long as I don't understand right and wrong.
How much  you got bro?

62. Let's pretend I have a lot. Is this the same situation?

63. lol @ driving drunk as intent to kill. Words have specific meanings gentlemen.

1in·tent noun \in-ˈtent\
: the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose

"Joe drove home drunk. This showed that his plan was to kill innocent pedestrians."

64. Originally Posted by ZyyzYzzy
I don't even get Xeq's argument. The kid was well above the 0.08. There is a big difference being blackout drunk and right at the threshold. Even the 0.08 is sort of assinine given such variability amongst people, and if anything should be lower, or google can hurry the hell up with KITT
Phoenix equated drunk driving with murderous intent and said you should get executed for it. Not just this kid's crime specifically, all drunk driving.

65. I got a DUI as an underage kid once for blowing a .034 thanks to different legal limits for underage people

I basically looked at alcohol and it cost me thousands of dollars

As for intent, let's not be ridiculous and change the meaning of words. Its clearly not intent because intent requires...intent.

I also do kind of agree with xeq. Driving at .2+ deserves crucifiction; however, a .09 DUI is not nearly in the same ballpark and isn't even overly dangerous. Yet they are sort of all lumped together, and a .09 DUI can ruin your life almost as much as a .2 can. The indignation people have (not here--people in general) about a just-barely DUI is silly especially when lots of these people are off texting and driving all the time.

66. Where do we draw the line with what alcohol does and doesn't do to our wits? Why can women claim rape when they are drunk even if they quite literally consented and intended to have sex? Why is it "intent to kill" if you have higher than .08 BAC and drive a vehicle? Don't be ridiculous.

The kid made a choice with wanton disregard for the consequences and now that ideal is being enforced by the legal system. He should definitely be locked up over this and for a long time. But I seriously doubt he intended to kill anyone or wreck his truck. All he intended to do was drive somewhere.

67. The intent of getting extremely drunk is to put yourself in a state where you will disregard preserving human life, your own and others. This is intent to kill.

68. Originally Posted by Khane
Where do we draw the line with what alcohol does and doesn't do to our wits? Why can women claim rape when they are drunk even if they quite literally consented and intended to have sex? Why is it "intent to kill" if you have higher than .08 BAC and drive a vehicle? Don't be ridiculous.

The kid made a choice with wanton disregard for the consequences and now that ideal is being enforced by the legal system. He should definitely be locked up over this and for a long time. But I seriously doubt he intended to kill anyone or wreck his truck. All he intended to do was drive somewhere.
Because we have a "legal" system based on archiac and idiotically defined set of rules and procedures. Law isnt logical. If law was logical and rational women wouldnt be able to claim rape while drunk against a guy who is also drunk and win every time.
Phoenix equated drunk driving with murderous intent and said you should get executed for it. Not just this kid's crime specifically, all drunk driving.
DUI laws being abused and misused as a form of revenue generation is a problem, but that isnt the case. Kid was hammered drunk and high on drugs.

And my whole he deserves to be executed is a personal belief. Its pretty obvious kid would never be charged with 1st degree murder.

69. The kid didn't know any better. Look at his parents track record, they a literally terrible people. I don't know if I would call it affluenza but he definitely suffers from the lavish and reckless lifestyle that his parents embellished him in.

70. Originally Posted by Dabamf
I got a DUI as an underage kid once for blowing a .034 thanks to different legal limits for underage people

I basically looked at alcohol and it cost me thousands of dollars

As for intent, let's not be ridiculous and change the meaning of words. Its clearly not intent because intent requires...intent.

I also do kind of agree with xeq. Driving at .2+ deserves crucifiction; however, a .09 DUI is not nearly in the same ballpark and isn't even overly dangerous. Yet they are sort of all lumped together, and a .09 DUI can ruin your life almost as much as a .2 can. The indignation people have (not here--people in general) about a just-barely DUI is silly especially when lots of these people are off texting and driving all the time.
I think there are legal limits for a reason, to avoid any doubt in such a situation. You can disagree and say that a 0.09 is not the same as a 0.2 and you're right it's not; however, we have no idea if the 0.09 would end up driving down the street and killing a family minding their own business. It's foolish to drive when you drink. I don't think there was intent here, but he certainly should go to jail. The verdict just reaffirms in his mind that he can do whatever he wants.

We had something similar happen right across the street from my house. Bunch of kids got high on weed and got drunk and were speeding down the street. There was a very large boulder on the side of the road and they hit it, spiraling into the air and landing upside down. Everyone but the driver died, and he went to jail. He made a terrible decision to do what he did and he paid for the consequences.

71. Originally Posted by Hachima
The intent of getting extremely drunk is to put yourself in a state where you will disregard preserving human life, your own and others. This is intent to kill.
No, it's intent to get drunk. Once you get there you tend to not think clearly. That doesn't mean that every time I get drunk I am intending to kill someone. By your logic even if I get drunk in my house and never step foot through my door I am still intending to kill someone, so I better be alone otherwise I should go to jail.

Lots of soap boxes in this thread.

72. Originally Posted by The Foler
The kid didn't know any better. Look at his parents track record, they a literally terrible people. I don't know if I would call it affluenza but he definitely suffers from the lavish and reckless lifestyle that his parents embellished him in.
That doesn't excuse him. That can happen to any kid regardless of social and financial status, which I've already explained. If his parents aren't teaching him, and society isn't teaching him then who the fuck is and when/how will he ever understand?

73. Originally Posted by Dabamf
I also do kind of agree with xeq. Driving at .2+ deserves crucifiction; however, a .09 DUI is not nearly in the same ballpark and isn't even overly dangerous.
You are wrong about .09. Sure it isn't in the same ballpark but it's dangerous enough that you shouldn't be behind the wheel. If you need to drive somewhere, don't drink that much. If you really want to drink that much, don't drive. It's not complicated. One minor mistake is all it takes to ruin multiple people lives, just because you are only sort of drunk or "buzzing" doesn't mean that's a risk to take.

Just because texting and driving is just as bad doesn't make driving above the legal limit okay.

74. Originally Posted by Khane
No, it's intent to get drunk. Once you get there you tend to not think clearly. That doesn't mean that every time I get drunk I am intending to kill someone. By your logic even if I get drunk in my house and never step foot through my door I am still intending to kill someone, so I better be alone otherwise I should go to jail.

Lots of soap boxes in this thread.
Youre equating just getting drunk to murderous intent. Pretty sure its easy to see were talking about getting drunk and driving.

75. There was no intent to kill. However he is guilty of reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

I don't get the affluenza or even the simpler unable to distinguish right and wrong defense. It is completely irrevelvant, just how using neurological disorders as defense is flawed. You and are your brain, nothing more, nothing else.

76. Originally Posted by The Ancient
You are wrong about .09. Sure it isn't in the same ballpark but it's dangerous enough that you shouldn't be behind the wheel. If you need to drive somewhere, don't drink that much. If you really want to drink that much, don't drive. It's not complicated. One minor mistake is all it takes to ruin multiple people lives, just because you are only sort of drunk or "buzzing" doesn't mean that's a risk to take.

Just because texting and driving is just as bad doesn't make driving above the legal limit okay.
.08 is 1 or 2 beers for most people. It isn't dangerous to drive in that state. The limit is purposefully set to a very low BAC to avoid grey areas in people's ability to still make a coherent decision about public safety.

77. Originally Posted by Khane
.08 is 1 or 2 beers for most people. It isn't dangerous to drive in that state. The limit is purposefully set to a very low BAC to avoid grey areas in people's ability to still make a coherent decision about public safety.
No, it's not 1 or 2 beers for most people, it's 2+ beers in a hour and immediately getting behind the wheel of a car. It's uncommon that someone just pounds 3 beers and then drives somewhere, why would they, it's silly behavior. Usually the .08 requires some sustained drinking over a period of time and yes people should not be driving at that point.

Not to mention that if it's .08 when you blew, it was higher than that when you got behind the wheel.

78. Originally Posted by The Ancient
No, it's not 1 or 2 beers for most people, it's 2+ beers in a hour and immediately getting behind the wheel of a car. It's uncommon that someone just pounds 3 beers and then drives somewhere, why would they, it's silly behavior. Usually the .08 requires some sustained drinking over a period of time and yes people should not be driving at that point.

Not to mention that if it's .08 when you blew, it was higher than that when you got behind the wheel.
Don't drop that soapbox holier than thou attitude full of common sense and science up in here.

Khane is trying to make himself feel better about every night that he gets behind the wheel drunk....

79. He probably has five DUIs. Wouldn't be surprised if he's murdered.

80. Regardless of whether or not he's murdered during any of those 5 DUIs, the intent was there

81. Well it seems it is slightly over 2 to get there on average but it isn't much more:

B.A.C. PER DRINK, TABLES, GUIDE

The point was it's a low limit, and it's low for a reason.

82. Originally Posted by Khane
That doesn't excuse him. That can happen to any kid regardless of social and financial status, which I've already explained. If his parents aren't teaching him, and society isn't teaching him then who the fuck is and when/how will he ever understand?
Exactly, there was no one there to teach him. I wouldn't hold him responsible. The way your parents raise you highly dictates your morals and how you perceive things. I think he's just the product of bad parenting. To some extent he is a victim but that doesnt excuse that fact he killed those people. I think his sentence was justified in that it's a start to reeducating him in ways his parents didn't while forgiving at the same time since he is a product of his parents recklessness.

83. Originally Posted by The Foler
Exactly, there was no one there to teach him. I wouldn't hold him responsible. The way your parents raise you highly dictates your morals and how you perceive things. I think he's just the product of bad parenting. To some extent he is a victim but that doesnt excuse that fact he killed those people. I think his sentence was justified in that it's a start to reeducating him in ways his parents didn't while forgiving at the same time since he is a product of his parents recklessness.
No one was there to teach him? He's 16 years old, not 12. Get your head out of your ass. No one fucking taught me not to drink and drive. I also wasn't taught to NOT stick a fork in the fucking socket. There's somethings you just don't do based on logic and reason, and this kid didn't give a fuck, so why should we?

And yes, double negatives all around. FUCK YOU.

84. Originally Posted by The Foler
Exactly, there was no one there to teach him. I wouldn't hold him responsible. The way your parents raise you highly dictates your morals and how you perceive things. I think he's just the product of bad parenting. To some extent he is a victim but that doesnt excuse that fact he killed those people. I think his sentence was justified in that it's a start to reeducating him in ways his parents didn't while forgiving at the same time since he is a product of his parents recklessness.
You can't be serious. It's a fucking law, one that he surely had heard about and seen on TV, movies, maybe even video games. You can't make it 16 years without knowing you aren't allowed to drive drunk because it's illegal. You can't even get a driver's license without going through a course that explains all the dangers of it among other things. What the hell is wrong with you?

85. Originally Posted by The Foler
Exactly, there was no one there to teach him. I wouldn't hold him responsible. The way your parents raise you highly dictates your morals and how you perceive things. I think he's just the product of bad parenting. To some extent he is a victim but that doesnt excuse that fact he killed those people. I think his sentence was justified in that it's a start to reeducating him in ways his parents didn't while forgiving at the same time since he is a product of his parents recklessness.
If he was a poor black kid would this trial have ended the same? Let's assume his parents were equally terrible and not around much, possibly addicted to crack.

86. Originally Posted by The Foler
Exactly, there was no one there to teach him. I wouldn't hold him responsible. The way your parents raise you highly dictates your morals and how you perceive things. I think he's just the product of bad parenting. To some extent he is a victim but that doesnt excuse that fact he killed those people. I think his sentence was justified in that it's a start to reeducating him in ways his parents didn't while forgiving at the same time since he is a product of his parents recklessness.
One of the dumbest things I've read here this week. Congrats on standing out.

87. Originally Posted by Noodleface
If he was a poor black kid would this trial have ended the same? Let's assume his parents were equally terrible and not around much, possibly addicted to crack.
I imagine so, I think he should receive the same sentence regardless of race.

88. Way to twist the point around. The poor black kid should go to jail, so should the rich white kid. Neither should be given leniency.

89. Originally Posted by The Foler
I imagine so, I think he should receive the same sentence regardless of race.
Yeah and when we're done frolicking through the meadows and receiving blowjobs from supermodels that would happen. I meant, do you think it would have had the same outcome? Not do you think it should happen that way.

Chances are, the poor black kid would be locked up and probably hit with a slew of other charges like crack possession with intent to sell.

90. Originally Posted by Noodleface
Chances are, the poor black kid would be locked up and probably hit with a slew of other charges like crack possession with intent to KILLLLLLL.
Indeed

91. Crack kills man.

92. Originally Posted by The Foler
I imagine so, I think he should receive the same sentence regardless of race.
You are meaning that if the kid was black and rich he would have gotten the same sentence?

93. Originally Posted by suineg
You are meaning that if the kid was black and rich he would have gotten the same sentence?
Not sure what that has to do with anything.

It's been scientifically proven that parents play a large role on how children perceive the world around them. This kid obviously had/has a very skewed view that he should be in therapy for, probably for a while.

94. Originally Posted by The Foler
Not sure what that has to do with anything.

It's been scientifically proven that parents play a large role on how children perceive the world around them. This kid obviously had/has a very skewed view that he should be in therapy for, probably for a while.
Because of their money. It was very much an issue with being too rich to understand right and wrong.

95. Originally Posted by Noodleface
Crack kills man.
you guys are late to the party, its meth these days.

96. Originally Posted by suineg
Because of their money. It was very much an issue with being too rich to understand right and wrong.
Correct. Their affluent lifestyle let them live in radical, reckless ways that your average person wouldn't. They used their affluence the wrong way which led to him being who he is.

97. Originally Posted by jooka
you guys are late to the party, its meth these days.
I thought the general rule was "if there's crack, you can bet there's a black. If there's meth in sight, it's a goddamn white"

98. that is so wrong yet right on levels outside of this thread.