Pyrocide Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Ethan Couch Teen who got 10 years probation instead of jail time for affluenza defense. The 16-yo little fuck killed 4 people while high on vallium and drunk off his ass (BAC .24). inb4 anon released his address and the fucker is killed by a lynching mob. Sad to say I know where this kid is from. I have friends who live in the city he was driving in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liddojunior Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 He is going to a resort for treatment, in Bel-Air. Afluenza is a terrible excuse, when many criminals have worse life background stories. (abuse, neglect, etc) Money is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 He is going to a resort for treatment, in Bel-Air. Afluenza is a terrible excuse, when many criminals have worse life background stories. (abuse, neglect, etc) Money is power. Just as an add on to the resort thing. its $500k a year to go to this resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
❤ΣκαπανέαςGr❤ Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 lol americans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysBorn Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 This is misleading. First, he was not facing a 20 year jail sentence, he was facing a 2 year jail sentence (juvenile exception in California penal code). The Judge was able to punish him more severely than what the prosecutors were asking. Second, there is no jury in California juvenile proceedings. So the defense attorneys didn't actually argue that the kid had "affluenza." Third, the parents were fined $450,000 per year for the next 10 years. Fourth, the kid is likely going to be sued in tort by the 4 families and will likely have to pay that verdict for the rest of his life. So he didn't "get off only with probation." Basically the kid is fucked as much as he could be given the state of the laws as written. Also CA three-strikes rule can put him in jail for life later. > I didn't write this myself, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 This is misleading. First, he was not facing a 20 year jail sentence, he was facing a 2 year jail sentence (juvenile exception in California penal code). The Judge was able to punish him more severely than what the prosecutors were asking. Second, there is no jury in California juvenile proceedings. So the defense attorneys didn't actually argue that the kid had "affluenza." Third, the parents were fined $450,000 per year for the next 10 years. Fourth, the kid is likely going to be sued in tort by the 4 families and will likely have to pay that verdict for the rest of his life. So he didn't "get off only with probation." Basically the kid is fucked as much as he could be given the state of the laws as written. Also CA three-strikes rule can put him in jail for life later. > I didn't write this myself, From what I was reading, prosecuters were arguing for a 20 year sentence and being tried as an adult. The fining the parents, suing the parents and the father's company does nothing but hurt the parents, does nothing to the kid which is wrong. He deserves to go to a juvi jail until 18, then penitentiary to carry out the remainder of the 20 year sentence. Also, why are you quoting CA laws? This happened in Burleson, Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 From what I was reading, prosecuters were arguing for a 20 year sentence and being tried as an adult. The fining the parents, suing the parents and the father's company does nothing but hurt the parents, does nothing to the kid which is wrong. He deserves to go to a juvi jail until 18, then penitentiary to carry out the remainder of the 20 year sentence. Also, why are you quoting CA laws? This happened in Burleson, Texas. He didn't write this. And I guess because he is leaving for California for his sentence, which might have caused confusion. Oh and if he's a minor by law, he has to be treated like a minor. If you have laws for minors, you need to commit yourself to these laws when judging a minor. I understand that what he did wasn't really nice, but you can't just make up a sentence. In the Netherlands we've got a paedosexual re-entering society. Nobody wants him to, but we can't just ignore the laws because we don't like the guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 Oh and if he's a minor by law, he has to be treated like a minor. If you have laws for minors, you need to commit yourself to these laws when judging a minor. I understand that what he did wasn't really nice, but you can't just make up a sentence. Minor killed his friend's stepfather, tried as adult I dont make up shit out of thin air. Minors have been tried and sentenced as an adult. Maybe that is true in the netherlands but stateside children have done some messed up shit and are punished accordingly. The kid was high, drunk and speeding through a neighborhood. Killed 4 people. Kid deserves the backdoor lovins from inmates and not a cozy resort for "troubled individuals with rich parents" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Minor killed his friend's stepfather, tried as adult I dont make up shit out of thin air. Minors have been tried and sentenced as an adult. Maybe that is true in the netherlands but stateside children have done some messed up shit and are punished accordingly. it doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysBorn Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Minor killed his friend's stepfather, tried as adult I dont make up shit out of thin air. Minors have been tried and sentenced as an adult. Maybe that is true in the netherlands but stateside children have done some messed up shit and are punished accordingly. The kid was high, drunk and speeding through a neighborhood. Killed 4 people. Kid deserves the backdoor lovins from inmates and not a cozy resort for "troubled individuals with rich parents" Where I live minors have been sentenced as an adult too. However, I think there is a big difference between killing someone on purpose and driving while being drunk (+driving to fast). I don't think he actually planned on crashing and hitting those unfortunate people. He assuming he probably regrets this himself. I also don't think the judge actually looked at his bank account first before sentencing him. Meaning this has nothing to do with being rich/poor in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 However, I think there is a big difference between killing someone on purpose and driving while being drunk (+driving to fast). I don't think he actually planned on crashing and hitting those unfortunate people. He assuming he probably regrets this himself. I also don't think the judge actually looked at his bank account first before sentencing him. Meaning this has nothing to do with peing rich/poor in my opinion. Yes there is, ones murder and the other is manslaughter--theres a very big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liddojunior Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Where I live minors have been sentenced as an adult too. However, I think there is a big difference between killing someone on purpose and driving while being drunk (+driving to fast). I don't think he actually planned on crashing and hitting those unfortunate people. He assuming he probably regrets this himself. I also don't think the judge actually looked at his bank account first before sentencing him. Meaning this has nothing to do with peing rich/poor in my opinion. The diagnosis is about being too rich. The judge knew the kid was rich. If he was poor that excuse wouldnt have worked, and he would have gone to jail. The whole thing is about money, he didnt know right from wrong because he learned money can fix anything, that is affluenza. Driving under the influence will get you in jail for murder, a vehicle is weapon. And it was like putting a loaded gun to someones head. I dont think he regrets it, he grew up learning money solves anything. (So he shouldnt be punished with jail) And in court learned money can solve anything. He would have gone to juvenile detention and when old enough jail. If you are in your teens , you can be tried as adults. And in texas he would have gotten death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 The diagnosis is about being too rich. The judge knew the kid was rich. If he was poor that excuse wouldnt have worked, and he would have gone to jail. The whole thing is about money, he didnt know right from wrong because he learned money can fix anything, that is affluenza. Driving under the influence will get you in jail for murder, a vehicle is weapon. And it was like putting a loaded gun to someones head. I dont think he regrets it, he grew up learning money solves anything. (So he shouldnt be punished with jail) And in court learned money can solve anything. He would have gone to juvenile detention and when old enough jail. If you are in your teens , you can be tried as adults. And in texas he would have gotten death penalty. What the hell. Driving drunk can never be murder. Murder is when I plan to kill you, travel over to LA and shoot you. Any other way of killing you, even in a fight is manslaughter. NOT murder. When you walk at me, I think you're scary and shoot you. It's NOT murder. Murder needs to be planned (unless USA has weird laws about murder. That's all manslaughter here. And if I let my 5 y/o drive and he kills you it's dead by guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Driving under the influence will get you in jail for murder, a vehicle is weapon. And it was like putting a loaded gun to someones head. Its considered Vehicular Manslaughter, which is far less severe. Murder needs to be planned (unless USA has weird laws about murder. That's all manslaughter here. And if I let my 5 y/o drive and he kills you it's dead by guilt. Pre-meditated murder needs to be planned; murder of passion does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Its considered Vehicular Manslaughter, which is far less severe. Pre-meditated murder needs to be planned; murder of passion does not. murder of passion isn't murder here. Yay another difference between Netherlands and USA. It's manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrocide Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 700 homicide in Netherlands vs 14000 homicide in US annually. Maybe the Dutch just don't have that many murders a year to justify defining circumstances. Here we have First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter (and many more sub classes of those 3). All are of the homicide definition but each are different types of killing another person. First degree is usually premeditated, second degree is like a crime of passion, manslaughter is homicide without intent, generally speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysBorn Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The diagnosis is about being too rich. The judge knew the kid was rich. If he was poor that excuse wouldnt have worked, and he would have gone to jail. The whole thing is about money, he didnt know right from wrong because he learned money can fix anything, that is affluenza. Driving under the influence will get you in jail for murder, a vehicle is weapon. And it was like putting a loaded gun to someones head. I dont think he regrets it, he grew up learning money solves anything. (So he shouldnt be punished with jail) And in court learned money can solve anything. He would have gone to juvenile detention and when old enough jail. If you are in your teens , you can be tried as adults. And in texas he would have gotten death penalty. And when you are too poor they'll blame it on those circumstances. Since his environment teached him to act like that, his parents, etc (it's always something). All I meant to say is that I don't think the judge kept him specially out of jail because he's rich. He just gave a fair punishment in his opinion. Also, it's not like putting a loaded gun to someones head. If you really want to compare with a gun: It's more like putting a bullet into a gun, then getting drunk knowingly you have a loaded gun next to you and then the gun went off accidently. I don't like comparisons though. It's also not considered murder. Where I live it's manslaughter without premeditation. But I'm guessing in America it's vehicle manslaughter (what awesome said, I don't know). I fail to see why he should have gotten death penalty for something he didn't intended to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Random Chilean Guy Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Lol,in my country is like whit Johnny Herrera. The goalkeeper was arrested after a fatal accident that involved him speeding under the influence of alcohol in Santiago, Chile and hitting and killing a 22-year-old female student in the early morning hours of December 20, 2009. After an arrangement with the victim's family, Herrera was sentenced to pay 25 million pesos to the family and donate football implements to football schools. On September 17, 2012 the goalkeeper was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, due to this the Public Ministery o asked for the reopening of the previous case. On June 27, 2013, Herrera was found guilty and sentenced to 41 days in jail and 2 years without a driver's license. He did not serve jail time because of "pena remitida" that the Chilean justice system imposed on him.Also the Judicial system in Chile is broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 The diagnosis is about being too rich. The judge knew the kid was rich. If he was poor that excuse wouldnt have worked, and he would have gone to jail. The whole thing is about money, he didnt know right from wrong because he learned money can fix anything, that is affluenza. Driving under the influence will get you in jail for murder, a vehicle is weapon. And it was like putting a loaded gun to someones head. I dont think he regrets it, he grew up learning money solves anything. (So he shouldnt be punished with jail) And in court learned money can solve anything. He would have gone to juvenile detention and when old enough jail. If you are in your teens , you can be tried as adults. And in texas he would have gotten death penalty. There is a huge difference between not trying to kill people and trying not to kill people. If the little shit drives a car at .24% BAC, it's no surprise to anyone that he kills someone. You also said that the problem was that he learned that money can fix everything. Judging from the result of this trial, this is true. This little fuck deserves the death penalty anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwesomeMcCoolName Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 This little fuck deserves the death penalty anyway. a little harsh. teenagers have a tendency to make stupid- ass decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crocoduck Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Let's all calm down, yea? This is a horrible thing, but like Awesome Mccoolname said, don't go crazy. A death penalty is not warranted here, the kid was high off his ass, and he's a kid. Natural stupidity meets more stupid inducing substance. But he certainly deserved a harsher punishment than this. This is at least involuntary manslaughter and/or vehicular manslaughter, not to mention the plethora of additional charges that should have stuck. Also, lets not be so arrogant as to assume we know this kid. We dont know what he thinks or how he was raised. His conviction is not his fault, it was the judge's. His crime is very much his fault, but not his conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherChigga #Mack Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 What the shit...Affluenza is such a bullshit "disease" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liddojunior Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 And when you are too poor they'll blame it on those circumstances. Since his environment teached him to act like that, his parents, etc (it's always something). All I meant to say is that I don't think the judge kept him specially out of jail because he's rich. He just gave a fair punishment in his opinion. Also, it's not like putting a loaded gun to someones head. If you really want to compare with a gun: It's more like putting a bullet into a gun, then getting drunk knowingly you have a loaded gun next to you and then the gun went off accidently. I don't like comparisons though. It's also not considered murder. Where I live it's manslaughter without premeditation. But I'm guessing in America it's vehicle manslaughter (what awesome said, I don't know). I fail to see why he should have gotten death penalty for something he didn't intended to do. Vehicle manslaughter is the right term. But im not saying he should have gotten death penalty. But he should have been punished accordingly and not let off on such a poor excuse. He killed 4 people, and prematurely paralyzed a few. A DUI is a very serious thing, and to have killed someone driving while under the influence is just as bad as intend homicide. He broke several laws leading up to the accident. I'm upset that he did soo much damage, and all his actions were obviously leading to a car accident, that could have killed someone. And he goes to a resort for therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
There Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 a little harsh. teenagers have a tendency to make stupid- ass decisions. He killed 4 innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crocoduck Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Not in cold blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.