Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on December 31, 2015, 10:56:37 AM
-
So Affluenza guy (I refuse to call him "kid" or "teen") predictably violates his probation, to include video evidence of such. He and his mom decide to hightail it to Mexico. They get caught. Here's where maybe the APS lawyers can help me understand: The mother is deported, but the punk gets a reprieve. It seems like it should be the opposite. He's 18 and an adult, so I wouldn't expect "protecting minors" would come into play, unless Mexico law defines it differently. I've heard weeks, months, or even up to two years before he may potentially be sent back.
Somehow after all this, I'm betting the next time someone tries the "Affluenza defense", they're going to end up with whatever the maximum sentence is for their crime. Also, seeing the latest photo of him, does anyone not want to punch him in the mug?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/30/inside-minds-affluenza-teen-ethan-couch-and-his-mother-tonya.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
I really hope they toss his worthless butt in jail for a good long time now.
-
What. The. *expletive deleted*ck?
Words escape me. I missed this in 2013. I gotta say, who cares why he's a self centered little *expletive deleted*it. I don't even really care if he is unable to grasp the idea of consequences. Those consequences still need to happen.
A skim of his wiki article gets one this gem as well:
Family history
His parents have each had their own run-ins with the law, publicized retrospectively in the media following their son's conviction.[11] Fred Couch has been charged with criminal mischief, theft by check, and assault, but the charges were dismissed. On August 19, 2014, he was arrested for impersonating a police officer, allegedly displaying a fake badge during a disturbance call.[13][15] In 2013, Tonya Couch was sentenced to a $500 fine and a six-month community supervision order for reckless driving when she used her vehicle to force another motorist off the road.[11][16]
Sounds like the whole family is just really impressed with themselves.
-
Family history
His parents have each had their own run-ins with the law, publicized retrospectively in the media following their son's conviction.[11] Fred Couch has been charged with criminal mischief, theft by check, and assault, but the charges were dismissed. On August 19, 2014, he was arrested for impersonating a police officer, allegedly displaying a fake badge during a disturbance call.[13][15] In 2013, Tonya Couch was sentenced to a $500 fine and a six-month community supervision order for reckless driving when she used her vehicle to force another motorist off the road.[11][16]
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ This is the family background of the kid who was "too rich" to know right from wrong?" :O :O ..... :facepalm:
-
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ This is the family background of the kid who was "too rich" to know right from wrong?" :O :O ..... :facepalm:
Kinda reminds me of the Ben Gazzara character in "Roadhouse". Who woulda thunk that existed outside of the movies. They also don't look like the sharpest knives in the drawer, so gotta wonder if the wealth was inherited.
Hopefully none of them make a nickel on the inevitable books and made for TV movies.
-
So Affluenza guy (I refuse to call him "kid" or "teen") predictably violates his probation, to include video evidence of such. He and his mom decide to hightail it to Mexico. They get caught. Here's where maybe the APS lawyers can help me understand: The mother is deported, but the punk gets a reprieve. It seems like it should be the opposite. He's 18 and an adult, so I wouldn't expect "protecting minors" would come into play, unless Mexico law defines it differently. I've heard weeks, months, or even up to two years before he may potentially be sent back.
Was kind of hoping the Mexicans would lock him up for 6-12 months for entering illegally. Some time in a Mexican jail ought to cure affluenza.
-
In Mexico you can get whatever "justice" you can afford. My bet is that in this case the same held true with the Judge in the jizz stains DUI case.
-
The problem with DUI and other crimes committed with vehicles is in many states if you can get a good lawyer you can just get away with about anything. Not necessarily the judges fault in those kinds of cases.
-
The problem with DUI and other crimes committed with vehicles is in many states if you can get a good lawyer you can just get away with about anything. Not necessarily the judges fault in those kinds of cases.
Truth by the bucket full here
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Affluenza guy doesn't know HOW lucky he is - not just to get probation instead of prison time, but to kill 4 people without relatives unwilling to leave "justice" to the system.
-
Little *expletive deleted*ck gets the harsh sentence of 2 years...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-affluenza-teen-ethan-couch-you-re-not-getting-out-n555366
That is, if the judge doesn't decide to reduce it later
Defense attorneys asked the judge Wednesday for a lesser jail sentence.
"Nothing I do is in stone, so I might reconsider," Salvant said. The case reconvenes in two weeks.
Comment gold, though
The mom looks kind of like Carrot top @!$%#ed that kid from "Mask." Too much unkempt orange.
-
The problem with DUI and other crimes committed with vehicles is in many states if you can get a good lawyer you can just get away with about anything. Not necessarily the judges fault in those kinds of cases.
You got one group of people screaming to get drunk drivers off the roads nearly to the point of wanting any blood alcohol content to be a felony DUI. Then you have everyone else who realizes that maybe we should really be targeting the ones who actually can't drive safely. Or instead of staking out a bar to catch people when they leave, the cop should sit at the door and offer free breathalyzer tests to anyone leaving. There is more, but dang that is a screwy issue.
-
You got one group of people screaming to get drunk drivers off the roads nearly to the point of wanting any blood alcohol content to be a felony DUI. Then you have everyone else who realizes that maybe we should really be targeting the ones who actually can't drive safely. Or instead of staking out a bar to catch people when they leave, the cop should sit at the door and offer free breathalyzer tests to anyone leaving. There is more, but dang that is a screwy issue.
Oh indeed. I don't support drunk driving but I've noticed over the years that those who get into serious 'drunk' accidents, IE fatal ones, are generally at multiple times the legal limit. IE lowering the limit to .08 from .10 probably didn't save many, if any, lives.
That being said:
Go after the 'super drunks' - seriously, they've actually created 'enhancements' in many states when you're way over the limit, because they've noticed that they're the ones in deadly accidents.
Give drunks in the back seat of their car asleep in the bar parking lot a night in the drunk tank, or even just a ride home. A ride home is a lot cheaper than convicting somebody, and helps build police trust. Giving them a dui, just incentivizes them to drive home because it's 'safer' to only be on the roads for a short time than in the lot for hours.
It should not be possible to get a dozen DUI convictions. At that point they've already lost their license for life, and are just flouting the law driving without a license, likely without insurance, etc...
-
^^^I have never agreed with the concept of charging people who are not actually operating the motor vehicle but are sleeping it off in the car.
-
^^^I have never agreed with the concept of charging people who are not actually operating the motor vehicle but are sleeping it off in the car.
Yes, they definitely went off the deep end on trying to punish people at that point. IMO, even if you have the car running and are sleeping in the front seat, it should not be a DUI. I live in the Texas Gulf Coast. Who wants to sleep in the back seat of a non-running car in 90 degree heat? If you are not DRIVING, it shouldn't be DUI or PI or anything else.
Of course, IMO, the only felony DUI should be when a drunk driver causes an accident or hurts someone.
-
The DUI laws are what you get when you let a bunch of emotionally charged people write the law. I am always amazed just how many people I meet who can't think rationally about that subject.
-
Go after the 'super drunks' - seriously, they've actually created 'enhancements' in many states when you're way over the limit, because they've noticed that they're the ones in deadly accidents.
Exactly. Something like bringing the limit back to .10 and 30 days for that, doubling it for every .02 over the limit. Multiple offenders get an extra doubling for every prior conviction. That way the .10-.12 guys are sitting it out for a few months at a time to learn a lesson, and the .24 guy is off the road for a long time.
I'd also support some means of forcing drunks who cause injury or damage to reimburse their insurance companies in full as part of their sentencing. Often, letting the natural consequences of an act (fixing the damage that resulted from it) fall on the person committing it is more effective than some substitute deterrent.
-
Oh indeed. I don't support drunk driving but I've noticed over the years that those who get into serious 'drunk' accidents, IE fatal ones, are generally at multiple times the legal limit. IE lowering the limit to .08 from .10 probably didn't save many, if any, lives.
I've also noticed that many (possibly even "most") of them are chronic offenders. Many of them, in fact, re-offend while their licenses are under suspension or revocation as a result of previous convictions. A big part of the problem is how to keep people off the roads who have zero respect for the laws as well as for the lives of other people.
-
Yes, they definitely went off the deep end on trying to punish people at that point. IMO, even if you have the car running and are sleeping in the front seat, it should not be a DUI. I live in the Texas Gulf Coast. Who wants to sleep in the back seat of a non-running car in 90 degree heat? If you are not DRIVING, it shouldn't be DUI or PI or anything else.
Of course, IMO, the only felony DUI should be when a drunk driver causes an accident or hurts someone.
I agree that if someone is not driving, they should not be charged with D ("driving") UI.
I can't agree with your second point. Driving while drunk is driving while drunk. Perceptions and reaction times ARE negatively impacted. Just because a drunk driver hasn't had an accident YET is not a valid reason not to charge him/her with DUI.
-
Often, letting the natural consequences of an act (fixing the damage that resulted from it) fall on the person committing it is more effective than some substitute deterrent.
How do you "fix" having killed four people, like the affluenza jerk did?
-
I agree that if someone is not driving, they should not be charged with D ("driving") UI.
I can't agree with your second point. Driving while drunk is driving while drunk. Perceptions and reaction times ARE negatively impacted. Just because a drunk driver hasn't had an accident YET is not a valid reason not to charge him/her with DUI.
For the most part, I don't care if you are legally drunk if you are driving safely. I certainly don't think it rises to the level of a felony or serious misdemeanor.
Perceptions and reaction times vary greatly driver to driver whether they are drunk or not. Should we cite sober drivers who are just bad at it?
-
Should we cite sober drivers who are just bad at it?
IMO yes. Not for DUI obviously, but for negligence behind the wheel.
If the DMV did a decent job of evaluating the driver's skill before issuing a license, this would not be an issue.
-
Exactly. Something like bringing the limit back to .10 and 30 days for that, doubling it for every .02 over the limit. Multiple offenders get an extra doubling for every prior conviction. That way the .10-.12 guys are sitting it out for a few months at a time to learn a lesson, and the .24 guy is off the road for a long time.
I'd also support some means of forcing drunks who cause injury or damage to reimburse their insurance companies in full as part of their sentencing. Often, letting the natural consequences of an act (fixing the damage that resulted from it) fall on the person committing it is more effective than some substitute deterrent.
I guess I am thinking of the guy who had 2 or 3 beers after work and then drives home. Yes, he is likely legally drunk. Is he driving safely? Why should we dole out automatic prison terms for that?
I feel like we are going after people for what might happen rather than what they have done.
-
How do you "fix" having killed four people, like the affluenza jerk did?
Hard labor until they're resurrected seems like a good start.
I guess I am thinking of the guy who had 2 or 3 beers after work and then drives home. Yes, he is likely legally drunk. Is he driving safely? Why should we dole out automatic prison terms for that?
You're never going to get society to completely decriminalize DUI, even if the driver can demonstrate he's better at .20 than any sober driver on the road.
I feel like we are going after people for what might happen rather than what they have done.
That's always going to happen, and sometimes it needs to. Would you want it to be legal to shoot into a crowd as long as you don't actually hit anybody?
-
If the DMV did a decent job of evaluating the driver's skill before issuing a license, this would not be an issue.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fthats-racist.gif&hash=c790d0f2fd1bda0dbeae765bcc357c4521bfdcc6)
-
That's always going to happen, and sometimes it needs to. Would you want it to be legal to shoot into a crowd as long as you don't actually hit anybody?
I felt it is more like walking through a crowd open carrying. However, in your scenario, if no one is hurt, the penalties for discharging a gun in public are much less than if you actually hurt someone. Maybe the difference between 1) driving safely while under the influence, 2) driving badly while under the influence but no accident, or 3) causing an accident while drunk. From another angle, running a red light or stop sign are also very dangerous, but we generally don't throw people in jail for them. I believe carrying it further to reckless driving will get you arrested.
Really, I would just like to move the legal limit back to 0.1 or maybe 0.12, restrict it to actually driving a moving vehicle (not parked), and maybe outlaw DUI check points. Do that and a lot of the current BS is reduced. I would be in favor of severe penalties for someone who actually causes an accident while drunk but I thought manslaughter already applied, maybe not.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fthats-racist.gif&hash=c790d0f2fd1bda0dbeae765bcc357c4521bfdcc6)
More like ageist; remember it's AARP and friends that fight tougher licensing the hardest.
-
You got one group of people screaming to get drunk drivers off the roads nearly to the point of wanting any blood alcohol content to be a felony DUI. Then you have everyone else who realizes that maybe we should really be targeting the ones who actually can't drive safely. Or instead of staking out a bar to catch people when they leave, the cop should sit at the door and offer free breathalyzer tests to anyone leaving. There is more, but dang that is a screwy issue.
Prohibitionists have never really gone away entirely, they just go after whatever they can feel morally superior about and get away with. As others have pointed out, making it illegal to sleep it off in your car or drive after having a glass of wine is not about public safety, its about PUNISHING people for enjoying a little alcohol, where the real dangerous problem drinkers are the ones who drive at multiples of the legal blood alcohol. Activist groups like madd can all go foadiaf.
-
Having lost an older sibling to a drunk driver, I was working up a very special rant for this thread.
However, there's always a "it wasn't me, I drive better than sober people after I chug a fifth, so it doesn't apply, let me do what I friggin' want, 'Merica!" individual or three in every crowd.
So I'll just bite my tongue and be glad I never see these people in meatspace. :mad:
-
Having lost an older sibling to a drunk driver, I was working up a very special rant for this thread.
However, there's always a "it wasn't me, I drive better than sober people after I chug a fifth, so it doesn't apply, let me do what I friggin' want, 'Merica!" individual or three in every crowd.
So I'll just bite my tongue and be glad I never see these people in meatspace. :mad:
I am fine with you saying what you want. Just when it comes to actual laws, let us all keep it reasonable and not go overboard one way or the other.
-
I am fine with you saying what you want. Just when it comes to actual laws, let us all keep it reasonable and not go overboard one way or the other.
Many laws and regulations are arbitrary, based on a consensus of ... somebody.
Look at building codes as an example. Why is the maximum allowable distance to an exit door in an office 100 feet? So 99 feet is "safe" but 100'-6" isn't "safe"? Or stairs -- maximum riser height is 7 inches. It used to be 8 inches until a few years ago, now it's 7. So 7-1/4 inch risers aren't "safe"?
Or speed limits. Why is the speed limit on a certain highway 65 MPH rather than 55 or 60 or 70? Somebody had to make a call and say "this one's good for 65."
The same applies to drunk driving. It's not based on how many drinks you have, or what's in the drinks. There is real evidence that alcohol in the blood system impairs perception, reflexes, and motor skills. A large person with more blood and more body mass can absorb more alcohol before reaching any set limit than a skinny, small person can. So what blood/alcohol limit is "safe" and what's "unsafe"? It's an arbitray decision, a consensus of somebodies who try to balance reasonable safety against unreasonable intrusion into people's lives. The consensus in just about every jurisdiction in the U.S. is .08 percent. They could have settled on .05%, or they might have settled on .10%. They didn't. We have what we have. Them's the rules, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who isn't willing to conduct himself/herself within those rules.
Society is a compact. In a civilized society, people agree that some rules are necessary and that everyone should conduct themselves in accordance with the rules. If everyone starts ignoring the rules and making their own (or not), we no longer have a society -- we have anarchy.
-
???
-
Prohibitionists have never really gone away entirely, they just go after whatever they can feel morally superior about and get away with. As others have pointed out, making it illegal to sleep it off in your car or drive after having a glass of wine is not about public safety, its about PUNISHING people for enjoying a little alcohol, where the real dangerous problem drinkers are the ones who drive at multiples of the legal blood alcohol. Activist groups like madd can all go foadiaf.
While I'm not a MADD partisan, this doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen any recognizable movement in the U.S. (in recent history) to criminalize, or even shame, those over 21 for moderate drinking that doesn't involve driving. Or even immoderate drinking, if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone.* I know people who would like to start such a movement, but they don't even get involved with M.A.D.D.
If the drinking and driving (or not driving) laws are out whack, why not blame the usual culprits? I.e., statism, bureaucracy.
*I'll strike that comment, as I guess you could say the "drink responsibly" ads from the beverage companies might qualify as a movement against immoderate drinking. Even there, I think "irresponsible" drinking obviously means drinking that doesn't hurt anyone (mainly through drunk driving).
-
While I'm not a MADD partisan, this doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen any recognizable movement in the U.S. (in recent history) to criminalize, or even shame, those over 21 for moderate drinking that doesn't involve driving. Or even immoderate drinking, if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone.* I know people who would like to start such a movement, but they don't even get involved with M.A.D.D.
If the drinking and driving (or not driving) laws are out whack, why not blame the usual culprits? I.e., statism, bureaucracy.
*I'll strike that comment, as I guess you could say the "drink responsibly" ads from the beverage companies might qualify as a movement against immoderate drinking. Even there, I think "irresponsible" drinking obviously means drinking that doesn't hurt anyone (mainly through drunk driving).
Whatever moron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionism
The term is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage.
-
So you just call me a moron, and then throw out some evidence that does nothing to contradict what I said. Brilliant.
-
So you just call me a moron, and then throw out some evidence that does nothing to contradict what I said. Brilliant.
I'm not even going to bother with addressing your strawman attack.
-
:rofl:
-
What the hell?