farmteam Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Quite the argument. "His parents spoiled him too much, so he shouldn't go to to jail." http://www.newser.com/story/179005/teen-ki...l-sentence.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsFKA9tfP_I This one was even more amazing (in a bad way) from here in China. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25...th-balcony.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Quite the argument. "His parents spoiled him too much, so he shouldn't go to to jail." http://www.newser.com/story/179005/teen-ki...l-sentence.html He still spends two years from age 16-18 more or less in isolation in this treatment facility, where he won't be able to drink, drive, or see any of his friends. Plus, his parents are out nearly a million bucks, when it really does seem like they are root of the problem. Plus, he's still on probation until he's 26 so he has to be very careful afterwards or he's going to get a prison term anyway. I'm not sure I buy their rationale as a legal defense, but the sentence isn't as light as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Those parents are gonna be facing quite the civil suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 07:07 AM) He still spends two years from age 16-18 more or less in isolation in this treatment facility, where he won't be able to drink, drive, or see any of his friends. Plus, his parents are out nearly a million bucks, when it really does seem like they are root of the problem. Plus, he's still on probation until he's 26 so he has to be very careful afterwards or he's going to get a prison term anyway. I'm not sure I buy their rationale as a legal defense, but the sentence isn't as light as it sounds. Yeah, I'm having a hard time figuring out where I stand on this one. eta: okay read a little bit more, he literally got off light because he's a rich kid. wtf. Edited December 12, 2013 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Selling a little bit of drugs gets you more punishment than killing 4 people apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 07:58 AM) Those parents are gonna be facing quite the civil suit Yep if the parents of the kids killed have the resources it could wipe the family out although I suppose the family has already taken measures to CYA That china story is creepy, that kid should never see the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 WTF is wrong with people. This is some sick s***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I hope the family spoils the judge with a very nice donation for his next campaign, it's the least they can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 07:07 AM) He still spends two years from age 16-18 more or less in isolation in this treatment facility, where he won't be able to drink, drive, or see any of his friends. Plus, his parents are out nearly a million bucks, when it really does seem like they are root of the problem. Plus, he's still on probation until he's 26 so he has to be very careful afterwards or he's going to get a prison term anyway. I'm not sure I buy their rationale as a legal defense, but the sentence isn't as light as it sounds. He killed four people. It's exactly as light as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 What people deem acceptable punishment for a crime is somewhat subjective. I'm sure some people think that he's a kid and doesn't deserve to lose his life and others believe he should get the electric chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 09:58 AM) Yep if the parents of the kids killed have the resources it could wipe the family out although I suppose the family has already taken measures to CYA That china story is creepy, that kid should never see the light of day. I doubt it. Why are the parents responsible? The only way you could get at the parents is if they told him to drive the car for their benefit (e.g., go to the store and get me some groceries, thus becoming their agent) or they knew he had a large history of problems with driving vehicles (negligent entrustment). That's an easy case to get dismissed without more facts. The only theory i can think of would be if they knew he had driven drunk before. Edited December 12, 2013 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) I doubt it. Why are the parents responsible? The only way you could get at the parents is if they told him to drive the car for their benefit (e.g., go to the store and get me some groceries, thus becoming their agent) or they knew he had a large history of problems with driving vehicles (negligent entrustment). That's an easy case to get dismissed without more facts. The only theory i can think of would be if they knew he had driven drunk before. He's a minor. Don't some states have parental liability laws? eta: this looks like a decent summary of these types of laws in all 50 states: http://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/...l-50-states.pdf Makes sense, given that a 16 year old isn't actually going to have any assets to go after. Plus the defense was that the parents literally were responsible for spoiling him and causing him to grow up without an understanding of consequences. Edited December 12, 2013 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) He's a minor. Don't some states have parental liability laws? eta: this looks like a decent summary of these types of laws in all 50 states: http://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/...l-50-states.pdf Makes sense, given that a 16 year old isn't actually going to have any assets to go after. Plus the defense was that the parents literally were responsible for spoiling him and causing him to grow up without an understanding of consequences. That says it's limited to property damage. And caps the damages on the parents to a pretty negligible amount. The kid is covered under the insurance policy for the car. The victims families will certainly get all of that. Gotta hope they have more than a s***ty 20/40 policy (20k per person, 40k per occurrence) like the Illinois minimum. This is a good time to advise anyone with a little extra money to buy as much uninsured/underinsured coverage in your auto policy as possible. There are a ton of uninsured drivers or people who buy the cheapest policies out there, and if they hit you you're screwed if you don't have adequate coverage in your own policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 05:15 PM) I doubt it. Why are the parents responsible? Because the parents said so. The defense's case at trial was basically "this kid is a spoiled moron who gets whatever he wants and has no understanding of consequences because his parents never taught him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 The judge should be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) Because the parents said so. The defense's case at trial was basically "this kid is a spoiled moron who gets whatever he wants and has no understanding of consequences because his parents never taught him." The defense was the parents caused this to happen thus if the parents of the victims have the fiscal resources it could get really messy. They appeared to let the kid drive at 13 and allowed him to drink.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 F*ck that kid and f*** society. He should be locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 My dad was an administrator at a higher classed school. The way some of those parents think their kids are innocent and don't punish them is disgusting. There was a kid who took his truck joy riding, went to school property and did wheelies, chewing up the grass, and his parents fought tooth and nail to avoid suspension was shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I always thought of Texas as a strict, "law and order" type of state. I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) Because the parents said so. The defense's case at trial was basically "this kid is a spoiled moron who gets whatever he wants and has no understanding of consequences because his parents never taught him." First, I doubt that the parents admitted to being bad parents. That was a theory the attorney ran with on behalf of the kid. Second, I think this is where the headlines and articles are a bit misleading. I'm not sure the "affluenza" stuff was a defense so much as an attempt to excuse his behavior. It's more along the lines of character evidence than an actual defense to the crime. It's not much different than putting granny on the stand and having her testify that he has never made a mistake in his life prior to that night. There's really no indication that the Judge even acknowledged that "defense" in her sentencing. All I've seen is the judge make mention that sending him to jail for 20 years, when supposedly he would have been available to be released after two years, was less of a punishment and wouldn't rehabilitate him. You'd also have to look at how Texas treats other similar cases (juvenile involuntary manslaughter) and find out if the sentencing trends lean towards forced treatment detention and probation and not jail time. It obviously seems way too light, but it might not be as outrageous as it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 First, I doubt that the parents admitted to being bad parents. That was a theory the attorney ran with on behalf of the kid. Second, I think this is where the headlines and articles are a bit misleading. I'm not sure the "affluenza" stuff was a defense so much as an attempt to excuse his behavior. It's more along the lines of character evidence than an actual defense to the crime. It's not much different than putting granny on the stand and having her testify that he has never made a mistake in his life prior to that night. There's really no indication that the Judge even acknowledged that "defense" in her sentencing. All I've seen is the judge make mention that sending him to jail for 20 years, when supposedly he would have been available to be released after two years, was less of a punishment and wouldn't rehabilitate him. You'd also have to look at how Texas treats other similar cases (juvenile involuntary manslaughter) and find out if the sentencing trends lean towards forced treatment detention and probation and not jail time. It obviously seems way too light, but it might not be as outrageous as it sounds. I guess my question to the legal experts would be if the criminal defense attorney's theory as presented in court is usable by the victim in a civil suit against the parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) I guess my question to the legal experts would be if the criminal defense attorney's theory as presented in court is usable by the victim in a civil suit against the parents. It might be, but it's not going to prove anything. Being a bad parent doesn't equate to negligence or an actionable cause of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) It might be, but it's not going to prove anything. Being a bad parent doesn't equate to negligence or an actionable cause of action. The defense was that the parents were negligent in the raising of their child and he killed four people. I assume the parents were called to testify and thus this can be used against them in a court of law by the victims parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) The defense was that the parents were negligent in the raising of their child and he killed four people. I assume the parents were called to testify and thus this can be used against them in a court of law by the victims parents. The defense was that the parents raised a spoiled brat. I haven't read anywhere that the parents testified, I read that an "expert" testified that kids from rich families often "suffer" from this "problem." But again, being a negligent/s***ty parent doesn't mean they were negligent in causing this specific accident. You have to come up with a workable theory on that and there are only two that i'm aware of - an agency argument (I ordered my son to the grocery store to pick up something and he hit someone while doing my bidding....that's an agent-principal relationship) or that the parent negligently entrusted the vehicle to the kid. But that theory, at least in Illinois, requires that the parent know that the kid is such a s***ty driver that it was basically a strong likelihood that he was going to hurt someone. The only other theory i can think of is if the parents provided the alcohol or did something to basically encourage the kid to drive drunk. Edited December 13, 2013 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts