GUILTY TX - Ethan Couch 'Affluenza Teen' DUI driver who killed four gets probation, 2013 #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is insanity!

Um, yeah just continue the cycle of not being held accountable. Alrighty then. :rolleyes:
 
I predict that with all the lawsuits the parents will move their money to another family member and then claim bankruptcy to protect their wealth.I remeber the recent case with the rich man from West Palm Beach that ran the stop sign while drunk and killed a young man.He then claimed his girlfriend as his daughter and she recieved his money and he filed for bankruptcy as to not have to pay the victims family. I am sorry I do not recall his name.

John Goodman. He was trying to make his girlfriend, Heather Hutchins, was struck down.

Judge STRIKES DOWN disgraced polo millionaire's adoption of his 42-year-old girlfriend so she could share his children's $300m trust fund
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eals-court-failure-notify-ex-wife-scheme.html
 
His auto policy would have covered the damages and paid the estate under the bodily injury to others portion of the policy. If he's rich, his lawyers and his insurance agent would have had him increase his bodily injury limits to at least $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident so that he would be eligible for an excess/umbrella policy for his personal assets.

ETA I found the case you mentioned. Her boyfriend is now her father? That is skeeeeevy.

Would serve him right if she dumped his sorry butt and KEPT HER THIRD of the $200M trust.

I wonder if the father will say that he never gave his son permission to drive the truck, it was stolen.

You know they are going to try everything possible to avoid paying out of pocket on this and other lawsuits resulting from the accident.
 
Looks like the same judge has also refused to try a teen as an adult for beating up a pizza delivery man. Sorry, the original link is gone, so I got it off of a forum.

Teen who hit 66-year-old pizza man with baseball bat won't stand trial as an adult
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2424685/posts

[/I]

Thankfully she is retiring soon. Although I don't understand how she got elected to begin with.
 
The defense psychologist regrets using the term affluenza, but stands by the defense he presented.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/justice/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/

"I wish I hadn't used that term. Everyone seems to have hooked onto it," he told CNN's "Anderson Copper 360" on Thursday night. "We used to call these people spoiled brats."

Meanwhile, the defense attorney says there's nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering of the families so this is a good sentence. I think those families beg to differ... It's like he's saying your kids are dead, whaddaya want from us?
 
This is local to me and I, like many others, am sickened. Seeing the poor man who lost his wife and daughter on tv, broke my heart. Judge not running for re-election, she doesn't give a crap. I know local reporter Shaun Rabb (Fox 4) is looking for people who have teens or have been sentenced by her. That should be a good story.

I'll say this, the dad has a big successful business - I'll be danged if I would be using him for anything. People need to boycott him and hit them where it hurts. Like they will even get it.
 
I think he'll be out of gas. When someone does that to obviously avoid a lawsuit they're usually called out on it. If he had transferred everything to his girlfriend prior to the crash he'd be safe. I think it's obvious why he did that.


Just a general observation. I wondered how the father's company could be named as a defendant. Evidently the truck he was driving was registered to the company.

I didn't know this about the truck. I hope someone sues for the victims. I'm sorry, but it seems all they have to get any justice. Shut the parents down. That's what I say. Hit them where it hurts.
 
I wonder if the father will say that he never gave his son permission to drive the truck, it was stolen.

You know they are going to try everything possible to avoid paying out of pocket on this and other lawsuits resulting from the accident.

He can't say it now without causing more problems. Besides, the truck is registered to the corporation and at least initially, the fleet manager handled the matter before sending the claim over to whatever company handles the insurance.

A written statement was probably taken by the insurance company given the gravity those statements are signed (each page) and become part of the claim file.

If he attempts to change his story now, he will jeopardize the coverage because it's clear he lied (either earlier or when he tried to change his version) and that will prompt a Reservation of Rights letter which gets issued before a full Declination of Coverage.

That is the kind of complication he does not need at the moment. lol

When your vehicle is in an accident and you weren't the driver, your claim rep will (or SHOULD) always, always, always ask you if the person driving had your permission to use it. And if they did have your permission to use it, were they using it to do something for you or were they using it for their own purposes. (state specific but the claim rep is looking to see if bailment appies)

There was a case here years ago in which a car was taken by the son of the owner and involved in an accident. The injuries were serious but not life threatening.

The issue was the father said there was no permissive use given. The argument was made that since the son lived in the house and had used the car in the past (not regularly; occasionally) and the father hung the keys on a hook by the door in plain sight, permissive use was implied.
 

The judge had an opportunity to do what this kid's parents never did. She had the opportunity to show him that indeed, in life there are consequences for one's actions. Her failure to send him this message means when he gets out of his swank, spa-like "rehab" in California, where he is being sent, he will have learned nothing and will emerge more empowered and dangerous than ever. This kid will remain a lost soul and a huge danger to society. Thanks, judge.

I don't believe that he got that sentence because of the wealth of his parents. I think he got that verdict because the Judge was trying to help him.

I think he should have gotten time and help.. But I think when you kill people by drunk driving you need to do time.

Why was the judge trying to help this kid and not the other 16 year old she sentenced to 10 years, for killing someone with a single punch to the face?

I work in the business. Anyone who thinks money doesn't affect who is prosecuted and how much time they will get, (if any) has no understanding of justice in America.

I have to disagree. I don't think that a poor, drunk kid would have been sent o a treatment facility.

You better believe that.

Here's the thing though, I read an article about this and it said that if he had been given the twenty year sentence he could have gotten out in two years and I think his probation would have been like a year or two.

That's four years. If he's on probation for 10 and forced to go into treatment he will be on watch and be held accountable for his actions for over twice as long as he would if he had just been sent to jail.

Nonsense. he could have been sentenced to 20 and then been given years of probation. Now this kid will be out with a sense of empowerment so great he will become and even greater danger to society. This judge not only failed to defuse a ticking time bomb, she lit the wick.

This is a hope for some justice:

All the probation orders I've ever seen for juveniles had a 'no alcohol' clause. That will probably be the first one he violates. He is already working on being an alcoholic. He will for sure slip some inside his party, ur I mean, treatment facility.

It's been a while but in my experience juvenile probation is usually good about following up and due to this injustice and being handed this notorious punk's case, they will stay on top of him closely. I've sat in on several probation revocation hearings since the juvenile was brought in on charges when I was on duty. They are usually fairly quick.

And I agree with bankrupting his parents through the law suits. They created this monster, let them pay for it. The families and victims deserve compensation since they haven't gotten justice.

What a horrible example this case sends to the youth of that county and state. That judge should never be reelected.

This kid will continue to break the law and get away with it repeatedly. I've seen it before. Money busy anything. he reminds me of the rich brats out here who gang raped a drugged teen girl, while videotaping it. Their creepy parents ran around putting up nasty fliers seeking dirt on the girl. She was so re-victimized in court and called a *advertiser censored*, repeatedly. It was awful. The main creep kept re-offending while on bail, but it wasn;t until he violated the terms about a dozen times and due to extreme public outcry, that he was finally arrested. http://articles.dailypilot.com/2004-11-17/news/export6702_1_keith-spann-kyle-nachreiner-greg-haidl

(Here's various other articles on the monster and his buddies: http://www.ocweekly.com/related/to/Greg+Haidl/).

Two teens busted for letting Connecticut girl drive drunk
Police said the two boys, both 17, knew Jane Modlesky was 'highly intoxicated' before they let her drive off in the SUV last July. The 17-year-old star lacrosse player for Glastonbury High School crashed a half-mile later and died before emergency workers arrived at the scene.
By Joe Kemp / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, December 6, 2013, 8:32 AM

Five months after a 17-year-old girl died in a Connecticut crash, two teenage boys were arrested for letting her drive drunk, police said.

Cops said the two unidentified boys, both 17, did nothing to stop Jane Modlesky from getting behind the wheel of an SUV before she crashed into a tree in Glastonbury on July 14, according to WFSB-TV....


The star lacrosse player for Glastonbury High School died before emergency workers arrived at the scene.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...k-fatal-crash-article-1.1539646#ixzz2nIzNwtuJ

I guess in Texas letting someone drive off drunk isn't a crime like it is in Connecticut.

Hell, I guess in Texas, driving drunk and killing four people isn't a crime either.

Anderson cooper just said the rehab facility's schedule would be cooking classes,martial arts training,riding horses and beach access.

And yoga. Don't forget yoga. Oh, and I heard his defesne attorney saying he IS facing consequences: "He's being taken from his family [to go to a swank spa in California]. And he won;t get to use his truck. Or play his x-box anymore."

I'm as a serious as a heart attack. He actually said that.

So this Jaime guy is about the same age, similar offense (drunk driving, killing a woman), also in TX. However he gets tried as an adult and is sentenced to 20 years. Makes me even more curious as to why this judge sentenced the "victim of affluenza" here to probation.
http://www.tdcaa.com/node/1543

Well, it's the money, of course.
 
Why was the judge trying to help this kid and not the other 16 year old she sentenced to 10 years, for killing someone with a single punch to the face?

Not defending the sentence or the kid, but I think the distinction would be someone who intentionally sets out to harm someone (even if the consequence is greater or different then intended) and one who doesn't.

jmo
 
Not defending the sentence or the kid, but I think the distinction would be someone who intentionally sets out to harm someone (even if the consequence is greater or different then intended) and one who doesn't.

jmo

Intention here is drinking and then getting into the truck and driving.
 
Intention here is drinking and then getting into the truck and driving.

Right. But the law (in some states anyway-haven't researched it lately) does not link the intent to get drunk, or even the driving, with the intent to kill people. Different, for example than forming the intent to kill a specific person in premeditated way or a heat of the moment intent to kill a specific person under various circumstances. It's even different, legally, than intending deliberately to injure someone (like the knockout death case).
 
Right. But the law (in some states anyway-haven't researched it lately) does not link the intent to get drunk, or even the driving, with the intent to kill people. Different, for example than forming the intent to kill a specific person in premeditated way or a heat of the moment intent to kill a specific person under various circumstances. It's even different, legally, than intending deliberately to injure someone (like the knockout death case).

Drunk driving has serious penalties. There is a case posted on this thread, about a 15 year old driving drunk in TX. He killed a woman.
Tried as an adult and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Of course he isn't a victim of "affluenza" so it's all good.
 
Drunk driving has serious penalties. There is a case posted on this thread, about a 15 year old driving drunk in TX. He killed a woman.
Tried as an adult and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Of course he isn't a victim of "affluenza" so it's all good.

I'm talking about the legal intent that could justify disparate sentences in a intentional assault case turned deadly (knock out game) v. dui. That's all.
 
I'm talking about the legal intent that could justify disparate sentences in a intentional assault case turned deadly (knock out game) v. dui. That's all.

So what justifies disparate sentences for a 15 year old drunk driver who killed one person and got 20 years in adult prison, and victim off affluenza here who got probation for killing four?
 
Right. But the law (in some states anyway-haven't researched it lately) does not link the intent to get drunk, or even the driving, with the intent to kill people. Different, for example than forming the intent to kill a specific person in premeditated way or a heat of the moment intent to kill a specific person under various circumstances. It's even different, legally, than intending deliberately to injure someone (like the knockout death case).

Criminal intent is not an element. So let's say "John" wouldn't need to intend to drive while drunk for a DA to prove a DWI/DUI case against him. Courts have consistently held that those offenses contain no element of a guilty mind so the DA isn't required to establish wrongful intent by John. All that the DA needs to prove is that the person intended to drink alcohol and then later operated a vehicle.

John being aware that he's impaired is NOT required to be proven by the prosecution.
 
"Affluenza" <------ so cute that it almost sounds like a real affliction.


:banghead:
 
Wouldn't drinking at the age of 16 be a crime for which the 16 year old was quite aware he was committing? So wouldn't getting into a car and hitting a group of people unintentionally still be a significant crime? Whether he intended to hit them or not he was under the influence and under age but chose to drive with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Ten years is a long time to be on probation. He slips up, and he could, if he feels he was let off lightly, end up in jail. Let's hope he doesn't kill someone else. There are certain "young" starlets who have gotten off easy and still just are not getting it. They somehow manage to continue to make bad choices and remain free to get in trouble, yet again. jmo
 
So what justifies disparate sentences for a 15 year old drunk driver who killed one person and got 20 years in adult prison, and victim off affluenza here who got probation for killing four?

I understand that the knock out game case was this same judge, but I haven't seen this dui case you're referring to. Is that also the same judge. If so, I have no idea. If not, it could be just the judge. They have tons of discretion in juvenile settings. jmo
 
Criminal intent is not an element. So let's say "John" wouldn't need to intend to drive while drunk for a DA to prove a DWI/DUI case against him. Courts have consistently held that those offenses contain no element of a guilty mind so the DA isn't required to establish wrongful intent by John. All that the DA needs to prove is that the person intended to drink alcohol and then later operated a vehicle.

John being aware that he's impaired is NOT required to be proven by the prosecution.

I know that. That was my point. Intent crimes generally get harsher punishments than non-intent crimes like vehicular manslaughter. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
144
Guests online
957
Total visitors
1,101

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,838
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top