Rich parents. Kid bought an Audi A4 to replace the other two cars he smashed up.
I was thinking the same thing. Either that or he stole cars.
The main thing though is how he still had a license. I assume he did, at least. As I said, more info to come I’m sure.
But blowing a red light at 112 MPH after totaling two other cars in the past year seems to qualify as evil to me. This is on a 35 MPH city street, not freeway. That’s a behavior saying you don’t care if you die and/or kill people and homicide is exactly what happened.
100% agree. Any defense along the lines of “Our client is super sorry and never in a million years thought such an outcome would occur” should be summarily ignored.
In light of the recent case(s) against the parents of a teen shooter, I would be in favor of at least investigating whether and how much the parents enabled this behavior, since the first instance a year ago. Aside from (presumably) providing the funds for replacement cars, I mean. Or maybe not aside from that, but he might have done the same kind of thing with a junker that he bought himself as with a new car. I’m thinking more about ways they might have helped him retain his license, or get it back after too short a period.
I thought about it too, but in the case the kid is 18 and that might release some responsibility from them.
Though given that the crashes occurred over an 11 month period, it’s almost guaranteed that at least one of the prior crashes happened when the kid was 17.
If their money helped him to retain or regain driving privileges, even though he is legally an adult, that seems like aiding and abetting to me.
Could be, IANAL.
Disclaimer: I didn’t read the cited article; just the headlines here in the thread. Color me lazy when it comes to Evil MFs.
Perhaps I am stupid, but is there any reason to assume the state ever tried to revoke his license? In many states that’s quite a process and budget and bureaucratic sloth means it often isn’t pursued.
Further, is there any reason to assume he had an unrevoked license? A very hefty fraction of people with DUI convictions who lose their license continue to happily drive anyway. This guy’s license may well have been revoked long ago. That doesn’t stop him from getting in a car, nor the car from starting.
Stopping driving after your license is revoked is an example of responsible deliberate law-abiding behavior. Which seems generally to be absent in this twerp and in lots of other people.
He’s 18, I haven’t heard that there was any indication that he was under the influence, rather the implication seems to be that he was sober. The only thing the cops said so far is that “speed was a factor”. I mean, 112 in a 35, I would assume speed is a factor.
As I said before:
We really haven’t heard much yet.
I did not mean to suggest that he was under the influence. Though he might have been.
I was merely saying that there is a large US population of people, the repeat DUI’s, for whom revoking their license does not stop their driving. We have plenty of statistics with a large n and a long time series to prove that.
So statistically speaking, the assumption that this kid’s license being revoked for any reason would stop his driving is unsupported. Rather, statistics tells us that we have little to no reason to expect that a putative revocation would curtail his driving even a little bit.
IOW …
License? License !? I don’ need no steenkin’ license!
Sorry to be unclear.
How many of those people are 18? That seems a little young to be a long term DUI driver.
Again I’m not suggesting he has any DUI history. None whatsoever.
I’m merely suggesting that thinking a license revocation for any reason would stop him from driving is hopelessly naïve. It will not.
Folks upthread seemed to be saying that
The kid severely wrecked two cars already. Therefore his license was almost certainly revoked. Therefore there’s no way he could have been driving this third accident car.
So I am utterly mystified about how he got in control of that third car to have the accident in.
To which my reply is
It’s because he doesn’t care whether his license is revoked. He’s gonna drive anyhow. Just like nearly everybody else with revoked licenses does. Thinking license revocation stops bad drivers is blinkered law-abiding middle class thinking. Which does not apply to these kind of folks.
If that turns out to be the case, I can only hope that a lack of license will cause him to be charged with (and convicted of) several felonies on the order of manslaughter, and not just fined. Based on the article, which I did read, there is no mention of previous jail time, and if the previous accidents were single-car crashes with no injuries, he easily might have been just fined (and had his license revoked or suspended).
That’s a really weird take. I certainly missed anyone suggesting that.
I had mine revoked years ago and nobody broke a sweat.
If the first two cars were wrecked in one-car accidents, so that there was no one else affected, would his license necessarily have been revoked?
Don’t you usually need a license to buy a car? He couldn’t have been driving the same car, if he wrecked it, which would mean someone would have to buy (or straw-buy) it for him.
(AIUI) No, you need a license to register and insure the vehicle in your name. While a third party can do both, the insurance company is going to want a word with you when they find out who the actual operator of the vehicle is.
I was in traffic court in western Maryland in the "80s, and a truck driver was answering a second or third arrest for drunken driving. Judge had the man place his DL on the clerk’s bench, and promised to put the guy in jail if he was caught driving before the Judge was ready to give it back. This was a man who made his living driving.
Dan
Because he was a truck driver, not a rich entitled person. His parents did not have Clout.