"Rich" kid kills 4, gets probation.

[Gravekeeper]

Just a nitpick, but the vehicle wasn't stolen. His dad let him take it. I see dad losing a lot of money and his business over that.

You should check out the Google reviews for his business. The company website is still down as well. >.>

[Andara Bledin]

No thanks. I'm not interested in "mob justice."

[Titi]

I've never heard of anyone in any state being charged with first degree murder for hitting someone while drunk.

Well there is this 16 year old in Chicago, who not only was charged but convicted of first degree murder. He is serving 25 years, and that was taking into account that the guy had NEVER been in trouble with the law before, had an A average in school and was QB of the local high school.

http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/201...n-2445654.html

This one from Colorado. She got 33 years.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...-near-longmont


Most now are charged with second degree murder, because you do not have to prove intent.

http://www.independent.com/news/2013...harged-murder/

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9191449

http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...7199e55bf.html

[Gravekeeper]

No thanks. I'm not interested in "mob justice."

I'm not endorsing it, I'm just saying business isn't good so to speak. Dad giving him a company truck of all things is the second stupidest thing in this whole scenario. As its going to drag the business under along with everything else.

Though I'm curious as to how rich his parent's actually are and whether or not their raising him in a such a manner is even really justified by their assets. When you think mega rich you don't generally think "owns a sheet metal company". That would kind of be the ultimate karmic irony to this entire case if the lawsuits end up causing them to be unable to afford the half million a year rehab spa. Sending the kid to jail anyhow.

[Gravekeeper]

Well there is this 16 year old in Chicago, who not only was charged but convicted of first degree murder. He is serving 25 years, and that was taking into account that the guy had NEVER been in trouble with the law before, had an A average in school and was QB of the local high school.

Don't think much of that matters with the spree the guy went on, cripes. Though the first degree charge is stemming from a State law.

As for the second one, the stand out part of that for me is that she tried to swim away. >.>

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9191449

That one is rather baffling. Mom is an alcoholic, had 7-8 shots of vodka and popped up on pills.....but neither the husband nor the adult daughter who likewise entrusted her infant son in the vehicle noticed anything off with her before she got behind the wheel?

[Greenday]

Well there is this 16 year old in Chicago, who not only was charged but convicted of first degree murder. He is serving 25 years, and that was taking into account that the guy had NEVER been in trouble with the law before, had an A average in school and was QB of the local high school.

http://beforeitsnews.com/the-law/201...n-2445654.html

This one from Colorado. She got 33 years.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...-near-longmont

The first case is apples to oranges. In this thread's case, it's an accident. In your example, it's someone who got pulled over and led police on a police chase. He got exactly the same thing anyone else running from the cops would have gotten.

As for the second, she wasn't even charged with it and she got 33 years because she was already on probation when this happened.

[Kheldarson]

I've never heard of anyone in any state being charged with first degree murder for hitting someone while drunk.

Caught drunk driving? Misdemeanor DUI
Kill/hurt someone while driving drunk? Felony DUI

The latter involves jail time while the former doesn't. I don't see how you could ever convict someone of first degree murder if there was no intent to kill someone. I mean, isn't that the definition of first degree murder? Planned out intent to kill someone?

It doesn't matter if it's first degree murder. It's called a discretionary waiver, or prosecutorial discretion, for a reason. There's also a judicial waiver. But in both cases, a member of the court deems that the crime is so severe that it should be tried in criminal court.

In Texas, the prosecution can submit a waiver for minors 14 and up. So they could try and sentence him as an adult. Which they should have since he KILLED four people and seriously injured two.

[Jester]

Are you using laws meant for adults and trying to apply them to minors? Really?

When the minor in question is 16, stole beer, intentionally got drunk, knew he'd be driving and did it anyway, and tried to flee the scene? I'd say that he knew what the hell he was doing.

And apparently you are forgetting that for more serious crimes, minors can and sometimes are charged and tried as adults. Minors younger than 16 have been treated as adults in the legal system before; that is not new.

And when someone's willful actions lead to multiple people being killed and multiple people being injured, even if that was not that person's intention, they can and often are charged with and tried for those crimes, and may even go to prison for them. This also is not new.

In this thread's case, it's an accident.

Accident in the sense that this was not the kid's intention.

However, people can be and are charged with crimes when something they do results in damage, injury or death, even if that was not their intention. That is the difference between murder and manslaughter. And there are many states that have vehicular manslaughter and DUI manslaughter on their books. No one gets drunk and seeks to kill other people, but it happens, and society has decided that it is no longer willing to classify such incidents as purely accidental. The perpetrator made the decision to drink and drive. Even if the final decision was while they were impaired, at some point in the chain of events they could have decided to take a different path, and they didn't. When you willfully drink to excess, you are usually held responsible for whatever actions you commit while impaired. No one forced this kid to drink, and his history shows us that this was not a one time deal.

You can call it an accident. And since it was not intended to happen, technically it was. But it was a completely preventable accident. The things that kid did and the decisions he made that day put that chain of events into action. The blame must rest squarely on his shoulders.

I agree with you that he should not be charged with first degree murder, as that implies premeditation to kill, which may be the only thing he is innocent of. But there is no way you can tell me that he was not guilty of manslaughter. And manslaughter, the act of doing things that end up with the death of others, is a crime.

An accident would have been if he had been driving along, and swerved to avoid hitting something in the road, lost control of his vehicle, and killed the people that way. A regrettable, horrible accident with no blame on the driver. This wasn't an accident. This was preventable death, and the blame is his.

[Racket_Man]

I don't want to wait for him to kill more people! What part of that isn't sinking in? Considering he doesn't think he did anything wrong, why are you so optimistic, he will straighten out?

He's already committed enough crimes in this one incident for several people. He wasn't just jaywalking.....

And to those who push the lighter side of the justice system I say this ------ What about the next set of victims this guy produces who either are dead, severlly injured, or at the very least put in the hospital for a day or two?????? What do you say to the NEW set of victims and/or their families?????? "OOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSSSSS sorry we made a mistake. I guess we take a Mulligan on this one."

Yeah the guy WILL then get jail time but this time MORE persons are effected that SHOULD NOT have been in the first place.

This dumbass IS a habitual offender with a EW attitude to beat all and is being enabled by his family/parents. HE JUST DOES NOT CARE. Sounds like a Socio-path to me.

[Kelmon]

As we all know, how you are at age 13 or 16 is how you will be for the rest of your life. So why not give life sentences to all 16-year-olds that do bad thing?

Come on, you can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of making reasonable life choices than, say, a 30-year-old man.

And @Fire_on_High: You might not have noticed, but what i was saying was not my personal opinion (though it is, too), but that of my country on the stance of punishment vs. rehabilitation. If we have, on the one hand, an imprisonment rate of <10% that of the US, but at the same time you have 200% the murders, 200% the assaults and 300% the rapes (all corrected for the difference in population), i think we must be doing something right. Even if that happens to be a total coincidence, it at least shows that this approach certainly doesn't make the situation worse.

Also, keep in mind that a criminal in prison might hurt your society far more than he or she would on the outside. It costs you around ~$50.000 a year to keep someone in prison, money that could be spend for other things. If you had our incarcerations rate (so, 240.000 instead of 2.400.000 prisoners), you would save ~100 billlion dollars each year, or ~$320/US citizen.

[Kelmon]

- (Double posting)

[ebonyknight]

I'm not endorsing it, I'm just saying business isn't good so to speak. Dad giving him a company truck of all things is the second stupidest thing in this whole scenario. As its going to drag the business under along with everything else.

Are we sure that's true?

I just can't see this kid asking for permission for anything. It wouldn't surprise me if his father said that to lessen his charges, despite the fact that this opens him up to more liability.

[ebonyknight]

And to those who push the lighter side of the justice system I say this ------ What about the next set of victims this guy produces who either are dead, severlly injured, or at the very least put in the hospital for a day or two?????? What do you say to the NEW set of victims and/or their families??????

Asked twice and no answer....

And your not going to get an answer to that. What are they realistically going to say?

Again, it's not like this is some typical DUI accident where someone made a bad choice and is sorry for what they did. He stole merchandise, stole a vehicle (I don't think this kid asks for anything), drove at near twice the speed limit, drove drunk and killed or maimed 11 people. Any ONE of which could land you in hotel grey bars.

Rehab, in order to be successful, requires that the person acknowledge that they have a problem and they want to get better. Without both of those things, it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig. The only difference is that more people could die on this kid's "mulligan". Come on, their defense, was based on the fact that he doesn't get it!

Sad thing is, if any of these people were directly affected, I am sure we would be hearing a different tune and it wouldn't be academic, anymore.

[ebonyknight]

As we all know, how you are at age 13 or 16 is how you will be for the rest of your life. So why not give life sentences to all 16-year-olds that do bad thing?

Because most young people (involved in this type of crime) are sorry for what they did when presented with the consequences......and they sure don't base their defense on "I couldn't know any better".

[Kelmon]

Sad thing is, if any of these people were directly affected, I am sure we would be hearing a different tune and it wouldn't be academic, anymore.

Which is the exact reason why juries are selected to be as objective as possible, and not being emotionally involved in a case.

If you rear-end someone, would you find it fair if that someone decides over what kind of punishment you get?

Because most young people (involved in this type of crime) are sorry for what they did when presented with the consequences......and they sure don't base their defense on "I couldn't know any better".

And that he isn't sorry to have killed his friends - you're basing this on...what his highly-paid lawyer told him to tell to a judge? That we don't have a photo of him weeping while putting flowers on his victims' graves? That he hasn't tried to kill himself yet?

Sorry, but you can't properly judge a person's mental state by glancing at an internet article.