Poor blacks now have povertenza as a result of this trial. 
[QUOTE Originally posted by Monty
If this is true, then you seriously need professional help, preferably before something happens to trigger your vigilante desire.]
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have any desire to be a vigilante, but if someone in such a scenario basically killed my entire family and then the system failed to bring them to justice, I would do everything in my power to end them. Do I desire such a scenario? Of course not. I would only act as a vigilante in regards to the life of my family, but I do not have any desire to do so. I do have a desire for the justice system not to be such a sad joke.
(emphasis added)
Given that the objection is not to the verdict (guilty) but to the outrageously lenient sentence, that’s precisely the problem.
Both of your posts indicate that you do, in fact, consider vigilantism to be a desirable method for you of exacting retribution. Both posts indicate that you would murder the offender, the judge, and the defense attorney.
Do you really not see how wrong, how sociopathic that is?
What a novel idea. I, for one, have never seen a defense attorney argue that a defendant’s impoverished background or lack of avaliable opportunities should be considered as a mitigating factor at sentencing.
At the scene, the little shit actually said “I’m Ethan Couch, I’ll get you out of this.”
Looks like he was right. This kid needs to spend some time covering his ass in prison showers.
Assuming my whole family got taken out, a defense lawyer who got the shitball away free, and corrupt judge (I could only sanction the judge if corrupt, not just stupid), I can certainly understand the sentiment. I’m not saying that I would take this course, but I could understand the desire of going all “Law Abiding Citizen.”
Sure the correct thing would be to sit back and take it. You know, such are the perils of our system and whatnot. Or perhaps there will be retribution in some afterlife. But I think many people would be at least a little tempted to right some (at least perceived) wrongs.
AND that people who insist on driving even though they lost their license this way should have the car impounded if they get pulled over.
This kid also had his own mansion.
This article talks to someone who apparently was at his “party mansion” days before his death.
Besides the fact that pool’s posted inane crud about vigilnatism before, he didn’t say he would feel like doing it. He said he would do it. I suggested that if that were true, then he’s in need of some professional help. He then repeated that he would do it, not that he’d merely feel like doing it.
In short: pool’s a jackass who probably should get some mental health treatment before he or she snaps.
Well, having a vehicle impounded might not be that much of a burden to someone who’s filthy rich. Some countries have sliding scale for speeding offenses, right? Why not have the same for DWI?
Hey, give pool a break; he might have too much money to think straight.
I’m having trouble finding the guidelines for Juveniles, but for adults:
So what some people see as simple “probation” might actually carry a lot more.
Good one!
Just found a PDF with sentencing guidelines.
Intoxicated manslaughter is a second degree felony. As such, the recommendation is 6 to 12 months probation. So he got twice the recommendation. 10 years /4 = 2.5 years or 30 months per offense.
It also appears that the cutoff age for trying a juvenile as an adult for second degree felony is 15 years of age.
(leading periods added to quote to preserve formatting lost in HTML)
So all told, I cannot find fault for the judge. From what I’m reading, she upheld the law. If any outrage, I would feel outrage towards the DA who did not move to have the teenager tried as an adult.
I am, however, willing to be corrected as I am not a legal expert!
What are the guidelines in that district for trying a minor as an adult? That’s the next question.
According to what I found, for a second degree felony, the minimum age is 15 years. I thought the lawyers had to move for the change of venue, not the judge.
No, I mean what factors are the prosecution and judge required to take into account to make the decision to seek (for the prosecution) and grant (for the judge) a motion to try the minor as an adult?
I am trying to find the answer, but so far it appears to be purely discretionary with no guidelines as to what drives the discretion.
In that case, it’s a crappy law that permits it.