Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

AffluenzaFollow

#1 Dec 11 2013 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good
Linky

article wrote:
A 16-year-old boy who drunkenly killed four people got probation this week because the judge — with no apparent irony — agreed with the boy's defense that he was a victim of "affluenza," whose parents taught him wealth and privilege shield consequences. The teen had faced up to twenty years in prison.

Sixteen-year-old Ethan Couch admitted to four counts of manslaughter after he and seven other boys stole alcohol from Walmart, piled into his car and struck and killed four pedestrians while going 70 miles per hour in a 40 zone. One of his passengers remains in the hospital with severe brain damage, and nine other bystanders were also injured.

Couch's BAC was a .24 and he also had Valium in his system. According to reports, he was belligerent at the scene, at one point saying, "I'm outta here." Prosecutors were hoping to get up to 20 years.

Couch's defense was that he was a victim of his parents' wealth and privilege; in that he never had to face consequences,


Now, I know I'm supposed to be angered by this, but here's why I'm not:

1) Even if was sentenced to 20 years, he could have done as little as 2 as a juvenile.
2) If he violates his probation, he gets re-sentenced to 10 years.
3) The little entitled douchebag will violate his probation & his parents have to foot the bill on a $500K per year therapy center.
4) Because his parents are also terrible people who raised a self-entitled douchebag, they get no contact with him AND they get sued out the *** for wrongful death by 4 separate families.

Most of the above information can only be found in the links in the article. But good job getting an initial rise out of me, Gawker!



Edited, Dec 11th 2013 1:11am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2 Dec 11 2013 at 12:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
What we can learn from this story is that the Judge apperently successfuly recieved his large package of unmarked diamonds by secret courier right before the verdict.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#3 Dec 11 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
I wish I had been a victim of aflluenza instead of poverty as a kid.
#4 Dec 11 2013 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
He'll make a great Senator some day.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5 Dec 11 2013 at 7:52 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I only read the story that was linked but didn't see that anywhere was given the judges arguments or explanations as to why s/he made the decision that was made.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#6 Dec 11 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
So he says he never had to face consequences, and now he doesn't have to face any consequences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Dec 11 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I don't understand why this is a news story. Wealthy white kids get away with things. Welcome to the last 40,000 years.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Dec 11 2013 at 8:48 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
I'm a little peeved by it. It's not about what happens to the kid's nest egg, it's about closure for the families who have now lost their loved ones and get to watch this kid skip away. Ten to one the parents will just smuggle him out of the country if he ***** up again anyway, so in the end no one will have really paid any price. I doubt that the 500k for that one year in rehab (and as I read it, it's only one year) is a worry to the parents.

They will pay off the families or bury them in lawyers, or the lot of them will cash in and move to somewhere warm and mild.

The judge dropped the ball on this one.
#9 Dec 11 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm a little peeved by it. It's not about what happens to the kid's nest egg, it's about closure for the families who have now lost their loved ones and get to watch this kid skip away

Money, stupid, they get money. That's their closure, and really, what's better for those families, some random guy in prison or financial security?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Dec 11 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Money, stupid, they get money. That's their closure, and really, what's better for those families, some random guy in prison or financial security?


What's better for the rest of us? I don't want to be walking down the street the next time this ******* decides to go on a joyride.
#11 Dec 11 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Torrence wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Money, stupid, they get money. That's their closure, and really, what's better for those families, some random guy in prison or financial security?


What's better for the rest of us? I don't want to be walking down the street the next time this @#%^ decides to go on a joyride.
Should minors get jail time for a drunk driving offence?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Dec 11 2013 at 9:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I don't understand why this is a news story. Wealthy white kids get away with things.
Less attempted subtlety than usual, I guess.

Edited, Dec 11th 2013 10:21am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Dec 11 2013 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Elinda wrote:
Torrence wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Money, stupid, they get money. That's their closure, and really, what's better for those families, some random guy in prison or financial security?


What's better for the rest of us? I don't want to be walking down the street the next time this @#%^ decides to go on a joyride.
Should minors get jail time for a drunk driving offence?



It wasn't just a drunk driving offense that didn't hurt anyone. He didn't just wrap the car around a tree in the middle of the night. He killed four people and injured nine others.

At at 16 he may be a minor, but it's debatable whether or not he's still a child learning right from wrong.
#14 Dec 11 2013 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Torrence wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Torrence wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

Money, stupid, they get money. That's their closure, and really, what's better for those families, some random guy in prison or financial security?


What's better for the rest of us? I don't want to be walking down the street the next time this @#%^ decides to go on a joyride.
Should minors get jail time for a drunk driving offence?



It wasn't just a drunk driving offense that didn't hurt anyone.
You're right. Do you think there should be mandatory jail time for minors for vehicular homicide?

At 16 he's a minor. That's not debatable. He can be tried as an adult but he's a minor.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#15 Dec 11 2013 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
At the very least he should have had his driver's license suspended for the rest of his life.

If he's that rich, his family can afford a chauffeur.
#16 Dec 11 2013 at 1:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Meh, he's 16, he should have known better but obviously he didn't.

While he needs to have some sort of punishment to ensure he understands what he's done and remembers the consequences I'm certainly not for destroying a kids life over a mistake, albeit a pretty horribly tragic and preventable one. I doubt he intended to go out and kill/maim a bunch of people. So, consequences, but not life shattering ones.

I'm actually not a big fan of any form of involuntary charges. The consequences of an action should not be dictated by how horribly the conclusion to said action happened to end up, luck should not be a factor in justice. Any drunk driver could have done this so any drunk driver should be treated in the same way. Punish the action, not the result or it's called revenge, not justice.

Make him clean up car accidents for the next 3 years. He'll get the point when he's pulling limbs out of the grill of a Mack truck..
#17 Dec 11 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Yodabunny wrote:
Meh, he's 16, he should have known better but obviously he didn't.

While he needs to have some sort of punishment to ensure he understands what he's done and remembers the consequences I'm certainly not for destroying a kids life over a mistake, albeit a pretty horribly tragic and preventable one. I doubt he intended to go out and kill/maim a bunch of people. So, consequences, but not life shattering ones.

I'm actually not a big fan of any form of involuntary charges. The consequences of an action should not be dictated by how horribly the conclusion to said action happened to end up, luck should not be a factor in justice. Any drunk driver could have done this so any drunk driver should be treated in the same way. Punish the action, not the result or it's called revenge, not justice.

Make him clean up car accidents for the next 3 years. He'll get the point when he's pulling limbs out of the grill of a Mack truck..


Yeeaaah, but this isn't his first run in with the cops, either.

Quote:
He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch's parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed 14-year-old girl.


I'm not saying he should be thrown in jail for 20 years, and it sounds like he could use the counseling.
#18 Dec 11 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
What's better for the rest of us?

What in the world makes you think that matters? Wait, are we discussing some sort of children's novel? I admit I didn't research the case in question very well, is it from a YA book soon to made into a movie starring some kid from the Disney Channel? Because here, in reality, sending a 16 year old douchebag to jail for 10 years results in a really violent 26 year old douchebag in 10 years. I'm not sure how that's "better for the rest of us". Or are you under the impression that the next wealthy self obsessed invincible 16 year old who is about to do something stupid under the influence of drugs will pause and reconsider if only we send a clear message here? Poor black kids go to jail for this sort of thing. That's how it works. If this was Jamal from West Dallas, he's tried as an adult, possibly for a capital crime. Is your point that it should be more egalitarian? If so, yes, it should be. Also people shouldn't be mean to ugly people or kitties.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Dec 11 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
So he says he never had to face consequences, and now he doesn't have to face any consequences.
He was bad, and now he feels bad. Isn't that enough? Smiley: rolleyes

My money is also on the kid doing something stupid, violating probation, and winding up in jail.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Dec 11 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Pretty much what Smash said.

Sending a kid to jail accomplishes very little. It creates hardened criminals down the line. It has little to no deterrent value since children, especially teens, are self absorbed creatures that don't really pay attention to what happens to other people and therefore have little understanding of consequences and how they apply to themselves. More importantly children have no real grasp of what 20 years really is in real life terms.
#21 Dec 11 2013 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Or are you under the impression that the next wealthy self obsessed invincible 16 year old who is about to do something stupid under the influence of drugs will pause and reconsider if only we send a clear message here?

Well, if he sees the Disney movie, yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Dec 11 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Then we ought to be applying these rules to every 16 year old who ever does anything stupid.
#23 Dec 11 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Because here, in reality, sending a 16 year old douchebag to jail for 10 years results in a really violent 26 year old douchebag in 10 years.

...

If this was Jamal from West Dallas, he's tried as an adult, possibly for a capital crime.


Jamal would be much more likely to end out a violent version of himself 10 years down the line whether he gets sent to prison or not, so the "cost" is lower, right? I mean, that is the logic behind this, isn't it?

/ducks

What? I can't play the racial stereotype game too? Or is it only acceptable when coming from nutty far left liberals?


Satire. Look it up
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#24 Dec 11 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
It's only acceptable if it's actually funny.

Edited, Dec 11th 2013 6:51pm by Catwho
#25 Dec 11 2013 at 9:29 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Satire. Look it up
You've got a very promising career ahead of you as a writer for Dennis Miller.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#26 Dec 11 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Smasharoo wrote:
What's better for the rest of us?

What in the world makes you think that matters? Wait, are we discussing some sort of children's novel? I admit I didn't research the case in question very well, is it from a YA book soon to made into a movie starring some kid from the Disney Channel? Because here, in reality, sending a 16 year old douchebag to jail for 10 years results in a really violent 26 year old douchebag in 10 years. I'm not sure how that's "better for the rest of us". Or are you under the impression that the next wealthy self obsessed invincible 16 year old who is about to do something stupid under the influence of drugs will pause and reconsider if only we send a clear message here? Poor black kids go to jail for this sort of thing. That's how it works. If this was Jamal from West Dallas, he's tried as an adult, possibly for a capital crime. Is your point that it should be more egalitarian? If so, yes, it should be. Also people shouldn't be mean to ugly people or kitties.


Personally, I find it more reprehensible that people of poverty or color get far harsher punishments than this young man. I won't argue that this guy should have received a harsher sentence so much as I would argue that those of lesser crimes should have received far less. The justice is disproportionate, not necessarily in favor of this case, but to detriment of others.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 485 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (485)