Kill 4 people- no problem if your family is wealthy

[EVT1]

www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

     A North Texas teen from an affluent family received a probation-only sentence this week for losing control of his pickup truck while drunk and killing four pedestrians, a punishment that has outraged the victims' families and left prosecutors disappointed.

     Authorities said the teen and friends were seen on surveillance video stealing two cases of beer from a store. He had seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding and had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to testimony during the trial.

     Boyd said the programs available in the Texas juvenile justice system may not provide the kind of intensive therapy the teen could receive at a rehabilitation center near Newport Beach, Calif., that was suggested by his defense attorneys. The parents would pick up the tab for the center, which runs more than $450,000 a year for treatment

[workpublic]

sounds like a kennedy or a bush

[workpublic]

if they have almost a half a mil for "counseling" they prolly got deep pockets for the civil suit payout.

mom and dad are  prolly pissed at all the money they has to spend rather than having any feelings for the victims.

i wonder if it will come out of junior's trust fund?

[EVT1]

From another story on this:

     A psychologist testified for the defense that the teen was a product of something he called "affluenza." He meant Couch doesn't link bad behavior with consequences because his parents taught him that wealth buys privilege.

    That psychologist cited one instance when Couch, then 15, was caught in a parked pickup with a naked 14-year-old girl who was passed out. Couch was never punished, the psychologist said. He also testified the teenager was allowed to drink at a very young age and began driving at 13.

(WFAA/KTVT/CNN)


The affluenza defense- great!  I guess his parents were correct.

[Deleted]

If you can afford a good lawyer, why should that be held against you? 

[billisonboard]

Dec 12, 2013 17:18:38 GMT -5 @joey said:

If you can afford a good lawyer, why should that be held against you? 

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence ... www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

This wasn't the case of a fast talking lawyer convincing a jury of something. Judges should be immune to "good lawyer'ing" and dispense justice.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2013 17:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 12, 2013 17:18:38 GMT -5 @joey said:

If you can afford a good lawyer, why should that be held against you? 

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence ... www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

This wasn't the case of a fast talking lawyer convincing a jury of something. Judges should be immune to "good lawyer'ing" and dispense justice.

Hmmm... so you're not suggesting a corrupt judge, one that is swayed by influential families are you?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

This is outrageous- this isn't a Kennedy-like issue in that at least this kid was CONVICTED, so it's a sentencing problem, and my guess is that the courts will intervene to remedy the outrageous misconduct of the judge in this case. It's not a 'double jeopardy' situation where he was acquitted. I'm guessing this sentence is wide-open for review. I can't imagine it stands.

Further, if the parents spoiling this kid rotten is the defense- then I presume they've opened themselves up to substantial civil liability.

[billisonboard]

Dec 12, 2013 17:54:40 GMT -5 @joey said:

Dec 12, 2013 17:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence ... www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

This wasn't the case of a fast talking lawyer convincing a jury of something. Judges should be immune to "good lawyer'ing" and dispense justice.

Hmmm... so you're not suggesting a corrupt judge, one that is swayed by influential families are you?

I quoted your reply #5 which referred to "a good lawyer" so my response was to that, not "influential families". I did assume that when you used the term "a good lawyer", you were referring to one with a talent for presenting evidence and argument in a manner which was persuasive. My response was that a judge should be able to look beyond that talent while a common juror would not be expected to be able to do so as well. As far as a second issue, I question your use of the word "corrupt". A judge easily swayed by factors which I don't consider appropriate is a bad/poor judge to me, not a corrupt one.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2013 18:12:05 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 12, 2013 17:54:40 GMT -5 @joey said:

Hmmm... so you're not suggesting a corrupt judge, one that is swayed by influential families are you?

I quoted your reply #5 which referred to "a good lawyer" so my response was to that, not "influential families". I did assume that when you used the term "a good lawyer", you were referring to one with a talent for presenting evidence and argument in a manner which was persuasive. My response was that a judge should be able to look beyond that talent while a common juror would not be expected to be able to do so as well. As far as a second issue, I question your use of the word "corrupt". A judge easily swayed by factors which I don't consider appropriate is a bad/poor judge to me, not a corrupt one.

Perhaps I should have said  a judge that errs on the side of the wealthy and not a corrupt judge.

[EVT1]

jonathanturley.org/2013/12/12/im-outta-here-wealthy-texas-teen-kills-four-people-seriously-injures-others-in-dui-case-given-probation-and-no-jail-time/

Good info:

     His wealthy family hired a top gun trial attorney and leading expert who invoked what could be called the Richie Rich defense — Couch’s long spoiled lifestyle in the top one percent left him uncaring and irresponsible 

     Couch, it turns out, predicted the outcome. Described as non-cooperative at the accident scene, he reportedly said “I’m Outta here” and walked away.

     As a result, Couch walked despite a plea to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury. Couch had seven passengers in his Ford F-350. Seven. Two were riding in his bed of the truck. Those two kids were seriously injured. Solimon Mohmand had extensive broken bones and internal injuries while Sergio Molina remains paralyzed and communicates by blinking his eyes. Therapy is not going to do much for Molina.

     Couch was going 70 miles an hour (in a 40 miles an hour zone) when he smashed into the car.

     Couch had a BAL that was three times the legal limit as well as Valium in his system.

[Deleted]

Dec 12, 2013 17:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 12, 2013 17:18:38 GMT -5 @joey said:

If you can afford a good lawyer, why should that be held against you? 

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence ... www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

This wasn't the case of a fast talking lawyer convincing a jury of something. Judges should be immune to "good lawyer'ing" and dispense justice.

Since dispensing justice is a moving target that depends on who you talk to, how is a judge supposed to dispense justice ?

[Wisconsin Beth]

I read that the kid was driving an F-350 which was licensed in Dad's company's name.  And that there's several civil suits started.  There's a thread called "Affluenza" started. 

[billisonboard]

Dec 13, 2013 14:02:50 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Dec 12, 2013 17:52:33 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

"(The judge) fashioned a sentence ... www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Teens-Fatal-DWI-Wreck-Sentencing-Sparks-Ire-Ethan-Couch-235549211.html

This wasn't the case of a fast talking lawyer convincing a jury of something. Judges should be immune to "good lawyer'ing" and dispense justice.

Since dispensing justice is a moving target that depends on who you talk to, how is a judge supposed to dispense justice ?

You give it a little better go than this particular judge in this particular case.

[EVT1]

So we have- shoplifting, speeding, reckless driving, the killing of 4 pedestrians, numerous injured people- including one paralyzed person and probation seems adequate?  

But he is 16- well OK- we charge 16yo's all of the time as adults for murder- why not this guy?  A first DUI offense carries mandatory jail time in my state- but I guess that only applies to 18 yo's and up.  Add manslaughter and you are in big trouble- 4 counts and better start picking out drapes for your cell.

Wonder how some kid from the ghetto would fare with a public defender.  Death penalty? 

[EVT1]

How about this one:

     In November, Tyler Alred was sentenced to 10 years’ probation for his involvement in an alcohol-related car accident last year that killed his 16-year-old passenger. Alred, who was classified as a “youthful offender,” pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges in August, Tulsa World reported. According to the Oklahoman, Alred confessed to drinking but tested below the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash. He was, however, still considered to be driving under the influence because he was underage.

     The teen avoided jail time when District Judge Mike Norman handed down a decade-long probation term in tandem with several other requirements, including that he attend church regularly, wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, participate in drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, undergo counseling and contribute to speaking events warning against drunk driving, NBC News noted.

newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/09/aclu-files-complaint-after-teen-sentenced-to-10-years-of-church-attendance/#ixzz2nQnUTwFB

At least this one was only considered drunk because of his age- borderline regular drunk, but I think .08 is bullshit- he probably would have hit that tree sober- some kids are just reckless and stupid and you can't blame Budweiser every time..  And to include church as a probation requirement?  Sheesh.  But it was Tyler, not Tyrone.  Haven't seen a story like this involving minority or poor offenders.  Or at least minorities that aren't wealthy.  Checkbook justice.
 

[Deleted]

Dec 14, 2013 2:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So we have- shoplifting, speeding, reckless driving, the killing of 4 pedestrians, numerous injured people- including one paralyzed person and probation seems adequate?  

But he is 16- well OK- we charge 16yo's all of the time as adults for murder- why not this guy?  A first DUI offense carries mandatory jail time in my state- but I guess that only applies to 18 yo's and up.  Add manslaughter and you are in big trouble- 4 counts and better start picking out drapes for your cell.

Wonder how some kid from the ghetto would fare with a public defender.  Death penalty? 

I believe you have to have some provable level of intent to kill before a murder charge is usable. With 30,000 plus accidental vehicle deaths every year, that would be a lot of murder trials.

[EVT1]

Dec 17, 2013 10:47:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Dec 14, 2013 2:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So we have- shoplifting, speeding, reckless driving, the killing of 4 pedestrians, numerous injured people- including one paralyzed person and probation seems adequate?  

But he is 16- well OK- we charge 16yo's all of the time as adults for murder- why not this guy?  A first DUI offense carries mandatory jail time in my state- but I guess that only applies to 18 yo's and up.  Add manslaughter and you are in big trouble- 4 counts and better start picking out drapes for your cell.

Wonder how some kid from the ghetto would fare with a public defender.  Death penalty? 

I believe you have to have some provable level of intent to kill before a murder charge is usable. With 30,000 plus accidental vehicle deaths every year, that would be a lot of murder trials.

I agree- but they sure as shit tried to:

www.csmonitor.com/2000/0403/p2s1.html/(page)/3

     Here in North Carolina - where the drunk-driving laws are perhaps the toughest in the nation -the state Supreme Court is considering a case that could pave the way for the US justice system's ultimate sanction. The state has already sentenced three drivers to life in prison during the past four years, and the next step - to capital punishment - is not unrealistic, legal experts say.

     "As for DWI [driving while intoxicated] cases being treated as murder, there's an overwhelming trend across the country," says James Campbell, the dean of the Center for DUI Defense in Atlanta. But "is really somewhere that we, as a country, want to go?"

California was the first state to convict a drunken driver of murder - in 1984. But that was second-degree murder. The North Carolina Supreme Court is now considering whether to uphold the first-degree murder convictions of Thomas Richard Jones, who killed two university students in 1996, crashing head-on into their car while intoxicated.

UPDATE: For reasons outlined and discussed below, we hold the Court of Appeals erred in that for purposes of felony murder:  (1) culpable negligence may not be used to satisfy the intent requirements for a first-degree murder charge;  and, (2) a defendant may not be subject to a potential death sentence absent a showing of actual intent to commit one or more of the underlying felonies delineated or described in our state's murder statute, N.C.G.S. § 14-17.

caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1127458.html

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2013 12:24:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Dec 17, 2013 10:47:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I believe you have to have some provable level of intent to kill before a murder charge is usable. With 30,000 plus accidental vehicle deaths every year, that would be a lot of murder trials.

I agree- but they sure as shit tried to:

www.csmonitor.com/2000/0403/p2s1.html/(page)/3

     Here in North Carolina - where the drunk-driving laws are perhaps the toughest in the nation -the state Supreme Court is considering a case that could pave the way for the US justice system's ultimate sanction. The state has already sentenced three drivers to life in prison during the past four years, and the next step - to capital punishment - is not unrealistic, legal experts say.

     "As for DWI [driving while intoxicated] cases being treated as murder, there's an overwhelming trend across the country," says James Campbell, the dean of the Center for DUI Defense in Atlanta. But "is really somewhere that we, as a country, want to go?"

California was the first state to convict a drunken driver of murder - in 1984. But that was second-degree murder. The North Carolina Supreme Court is now considering whether to uphold the first-degree murder convictions of Thomas Richard Jones, who killed two university students in 1996, crashing head-on into their car while intoxicated.

UPDATE: For reasons outlined and discussed below, we hold the Court of Appeals erred in that for purposes of felony murder:  (1) culpable negligence may not be used to satisfy the intent requirements for a first-degree murder charge;  and, (2) a defendant may not be subject to a potential death sentence absent a showing of actual intent to commit one or more of the underlying felonies delineated or described in our state's murder statute, N.C.G.S. § 14-17.

caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-supreme-court/1127458.html

About 30 years ago when I was in my late twenties, my car was broadsided by a drunk driver. It was a neighbor from four houses down my street. I have permanent injuries to my upper thoracic vertebrae in my back and my left leg. Even so, I don't believe a drunk driver gets into his car with the intent to maim or kill. Drunk driving laws should be more strictly enforced, instead of just putting them back on the road again. This would go a long way towards minimizing the problem.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Dec 14, 2013 2:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So we have- shoplifting, speeding, reckless driving, the killing of 4 pedestrians, numerous injured people- including one paralyzed person and probation seems adequate?  

But he is 16- well OK- we charge 16yo's all of the time as adults for murder- why not this guy?  A first DUI offense carries mandatory jail time in my state- but I guess that only applies to 18 yo's and up.  Add manslaughter and you are in big trouble- 4 counts and better start picking out drapes for your cell.

Wonder how some kid from the ghetto would fare with a public defender.  Death penalty? 

This is from Slate - an article on an interview w/ a music reviewer.  www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/12/16/sexual_assault_allegations_against_r_kelly_now_online_thanks_to_jim_derogatis.html

"DeRogatis has done a lot of thinking about not only why it's been so hard to bring R. Kelly to justice, but why the public has all but forgotten the terrible things Kelly has been accused of doing. His conclusion: "The saddest fact I've learned is nobody matters less to our society than young black women. Nobody."" 

R. Kelly has a history of raping and/or sexually abusing teen girls. 

So how do kids from the ghetto fare?  Badly, if we use this example. 

[djAdvocate]

twinkie defense.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Dec 17, 2013 10:47:22 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Dec 14, 2013 2:13:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

So we have- shoplifting, speeding, reckless driving, the killing of 4 pedestrians, numerous injured people- including one paralyzed person and probation seems adequate?  

But he is 16- well OK- we charge 16yo's all of the time as adults for murder- why not this guy?  A first DUI offense carries mandatory jail time in my state- but I guess that only applies to 18 yo's and up.  Add manslaughter and you are in big trouble- 4 counts and better start picking out drapes for your cell.

Wonder how some kid from the ghetto would fare with a public defender.  Death penalty? 

I believe you have to have some provable level of intent to kill before a murder charge is usable. With 30,000 plus accidental vehicle deaths every year, that would be a lot of murder trials.

Well, as they say with firearms- intent follows the bullet.  You fire into the air, and it kills someone- that's second degree murder.  If you get behind the wheel of a car impaired, I've always felt it should be the same.  See, my whole philosophy is that we ought to dispense with "DUI", unConstitutional roadside checkpoints, and fraudulent 'convictions' that result in people that have had a few glasses of wine paying thousands of dollars in fines- and for that matter, quit all the fussing about speed limits and red light cameras.  Instead, we should focus on a kind of 'no blood, no foul' approach- but if there's blood, there's a big foul.  Treat a car like we treat guns (they sure kill more people) and say there's really no such thing as an 'accident' (there's really almost never a true 'accident') and hold people accountable for what they do behind the wheel.  If we did, we'd automatically have safer roads.  If you don't think the prospect of causing a wreck and knowing that it's 25 years to life would help modify MOST people's behavior- you're just mistaken about that.  Even those that couldn't help themselves, if it was serious enough on the back end- others would step in and help them make a better decision / prevent them from driving.  Especially if, for good measure, you slap a $10,000 fine on anyone whose car is involved whether or not they were driving.

I've always felt that for an activity that is life and death- kills more people than any other activity by far- we, in the US, have an EXTREMELY casual approach to driving.  We laugh and joke about people who can't manage a 3,000 pound missile like it's somehow funny that so and so has had nine fender benders, or grandma can't see over the steering wheel.  

I've never really found the joking to be funny.  I think it's time we got deadly serious about driving, period-- and that means we quit playing games.  No more roads and laws designed for revenue generation, no more DUI fraud that violates our rights and costs people money but doesn't take aim at the people that KILL FOUR PEOPLE with the help of Daddy's company truck.

[DVM gone riding]

Dec 12, 2013 13:30:30 GMT -5 workpublic said:

sounds like a kennedy or a bush

Got to say at least you are an equal opportunity political family basher!   I love it.

[DVM gone riding]

Dec 14, 2013 2:28:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

How about this one:

     In November, Tyler Alred was sentenced to 10 years’ probation for his involvement in an alcohol-related car accident last year that killed his 16-year-old passenger. Alred, who was classified as a “youthful offender,” pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges in August, Tulsa World reported. According to the Oklahoman, Alred confessed to drinking but tested below the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash. He was, however, still considered to be driving under the influence because he was underage.

     The teen avoided jail time when District Judge Mike Norman handed down a decade-long probation term in tandem with several other requirements, including that he attend church regularly, wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, participate in drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, undergo counseling and contribute to speaking events warning against drunk driving, NBC News noted.

newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/09/aclu-files-complaint-after-teen-sentenced-to-10-years-of-church-attendance/#ixzz2nQnUTwFB

At least this one was only considered drunk because of his age- borderline regular drunk, but I think .08 is bullshit- he probably would have hit that tree sober- some kids are just reckless and stupid and you can't blame Budweiser every time..  And to include church as a probation requirement?  Sheesh.  But it was Tyler, not Tyrone.  Haven't seen a story like this involving minority or poor offenders.  Or at least minorities that aren't wealthy.  Checkbook justice.
 

I actually think that sentence makes sense in that case esp given the fact that he was LOWER then the legal BAL of course he wasn't suppose to be drinking at all--but he wasn't 3x the legal limit. And 10 years is a very long probation. basically the judge in this case has said you screwed up and I am giving you ONE shot at walking a very narrow road cause I think you were a stupid kid not a bad kid. That is a lot different then the other case.

[grits]

He had two things working in his favor, his age, and parents getting a high powered lawyer.

Teens with alcohol abuse issues tend to get handled lightly in Texas.

Suing the family and/or dad's business isn't going to hurt them much. The state has a lawsuit damage limit that applies to each occurrence.

The police could very well be waiting for him to turn 18 or even 21. If he doesn't change, they'll get him.

The one that has the most to fear is the judge himself.  Unless he lives in a totally corrupt county, he could be voted out of office next election.

[sesfw]

If you get behind the wheel of a car impaired, I've always felt it should be the same.

I have yet to hear about someone having the booze poured down the throat by someone else.  I have always felt that a person convicted of a DUI should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

I mentioned my thoughts at work one day and you should have heard the howls of protest.  I worked with pot smokers and drinkers.  They didn't have a single defense to make me change my mind.

Money speaks loud and clear.  If each of the families of the people hurt and killed sued the kid's daddy, maybe that would get the attention.  Especially if the young man had to care for the person in the wheelchair for the rest of life.

However money talks.

[grits]

Dec 28, 2013 21:21:10 GMT -5 sesfw said:

If you get behind the wheel of a car impaired, I've always felt it should be the same.

I have yet to hear about someone having the booze poured down the throat by someone else.  I have always felt that a person convicted of a DUI should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

I mentioned my thoughts at work one day and you should have heard the howls of protest.  I worked with pot smokers and drinkers.  They didn't have a single defense to make me change my mind.

Money speaks loud and clear.  If each of the families of the people hurt and killed sued the kid's daddy, maybe that would get the attention.  Especially if the young man had to care for the person in the wheelchair for the rest of life.

However money talks.

The state law limiting the possible damages available for each occurrence is going to save them big bucks.

[EVT1]

Ummm- what lawsuit limits are those?  I think you might be confused on this.

The only caps on torts I am aware of only apply to municipalities, and maybe for punitive damages.  There may be caps on pain and suffering, etc. in medical malpractice,  workers comp cases, or maybe some others.  But- suing an individual or business is not limited when it comes to actual damages anywhere I am aware of.  (Of course you never know in places like FL or TX)  They will be paying plenty.

[grits]

If you really want to get them, sue the company.  The company is going to have the bigger insurance, and bucks.

I would be more pleased if we adopted some of Singapore's more strict punishments.  I do not think they should put this teen to death.  I do think that when he first got into trouble way back when, they should have caned his rear.  Evidently, his parents didn't hold him very accountable for his actions.

If this had happened, and the kid had been working class, would you be screaming for extreme monetary damages if his parents couldn't pay?  How much of this is just because his family has money?  The affluence was used as part of his defense.  It isn't what caused him to steal, and be bad.  Bad parenting is at fault there.  What if your child took your vehicle without your knowledge, and stole beer?  If they had a wreck. would you want everything you owned seized to pay the costs?

There is a big problem among a lot of people in the USA.  They hate the rich until they get there.  When they get there, they call the non-rich lazy.

I would like to not only see him undergo treatment, I think he should have to serve time on a work farm.  If I had to chop cotton, and pick cotton in the hot Texas sun, I'd do everything I could to keep from going back. The facilities should include a program to allow him to get his GED. 

Being that he is under-aged, his record will probably be sealed.   

 

[grits]

Dec 29, 2013 1:39:11 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Ummm- what lawsuit limits are those?  I think you might be confused on this.

The only caps on torts I am aware of only apply to municipalities, and maybe for punitive damages.  There may be caps on pain and suffering, etc. in medical malpractice,  workers comp cases, or maybe some others.  But- suing an individual or business is not limited when it comes to actual damages anywhere I am aware of.  (Of course you never know in places like FL or TX)  They will be paying plenty.

Maybe, maybe not. A jury will decide the dollar amount. A judge can still be a goober like this one, and reduce the award.

If you sue the parents, you are going to have to prove negligence on their part for him taking the truck without permission, stealing beer, and driving. You can bet it is going to be a circus in that court room. If they can get that high powered a lawyer to get this punk off, they'll get an even better one to protect their wealth. If he has a trust fund, they can go after it.  Good luck parents of Ron Goldman.