Teen Arraigned in Phoebe Prince Case Arrested for Drunken Driving

I swear this town is situated in some sort of bizzarro land where bad is good and being decent is the kiss of death. AR was drinking underage and driving and the townies don't bat an eyelash. he was fined 40 bucks?!?!! Are we sure this city isn't in another dimension ?? I'm just so confused by the action of these people.
 
One thing...if I were Austins Mom, I'd also forbid him from seeing Flannery Mullins.

IMO we could see some intensely sad revelations in regards to parents having absolutely failed with more than a few of these 6 kids...I suppose that should not surprise us...in the least, but what might is that their failure may have been due to a lack of real effort or concern on their part....with their kids....something that continues and has only grown more intense in at least 2 of these kid's situations....life takes its toll...kids get born unexpectedly, stupid begets stupid....what was just "disdain" for a kid cuz of the crimp the kid being born put into Mom's lifestyle has now become plain out hatred.

Were all to come to be known, really the "whole dirty truth" about at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 of these kids "parents" (parent singular being the actual appropriate term in some of these cases) we'd even see something approaching sympathy for the kids among these six who had, and have, really messed up parents. :(

When you hear people say "theres more to this story" thats very well part of what they're talking about....will the defense "go there" though?? raise the question of what contribution to this deal a really messed up parent made??, certainly the prosecution (one would expect) would not.

Some of you read "Jim/Roger" defend Kayla's extended family from attack by SauerKraut on The Litterbox Blog. What I took from his words was that Kayla's Mom may not have been as present within her daughter's life as a parent might be expected to be or might "usually" be....and that she kept Kayla from the Narey side of the family.

Kayla's dad died, I believe, about 2.5 or 3 years ago....I get the impression that he and Kayla's Mom were not together at the time...don't know for sure though but its been suggested to me that Kayla's Mom had run interference with Kayla's dad seeing her so thats where I got the idea that they were separated at the time of his death.

I have also read, elsewhere I think not Litterbox, that Austin's Mom is "distracted by other things in her life"...don't know what was meant by that of course but it sounds pretty bad to me.

Ashley's dad Roger....also...hmmmm just thought of that....he's Roger and the guy who was brought in as relief pitcher for "Jim" in the SauerKraut/Jim-Roger debate is also Roger....hmmmmmm how many Rogers can there be in SH???......hmmmm well whatever he flat out said on facebook that Ashley's Mom, his ex-wife was (is?) a drug user.....can't recall exactly what tense he placed his accusation in....I believe that it was present tense though.

Roger's comments were discussed in one of the threads here....most will know of those.

Sharon's Mom embarrassed herself in front of the world by telling a reporter that her daughter had merely called names back and forth on ONE occasion :woohoo: which the charging docs (joinders??) say very much otherwise....cafeteria, Latin class, attacking Phoebe without provocation on at least those 2 occasions and even being suspended for a day from school as result of the Latin Class incident where she actually pops her head INTO a classroom and verbally attacks Phoebe :loser:

What an ignorant f - oh wait...Paladine said I shouldn't cuss or I'll get hooked up with another timeout. :sick: nervous stomach. By the way how many of you guys missed me?

Hmmmm :furious: Of course Sharon's mom should have known from her daughter's suspension that it was not "just one incident" unless we are to believe that she got no details at all from the school on why her daughter was punished but I'm more comfortable with concluding that she is an idiot, just my opinion.

Point being: I am hopeful that the parents of these kids will be called to account for their contribution in raising children who, when they find a "weakness" (in this instance: timidity in the face of confrontation) within a 14/15 year old girl who just happens to be completely out of their league looks, body and intelligence wise would find themselves capable of tormenting said girl to death.

I'd like to request that the parents of these kids be be called to answer for the actions of their children bcuz I feel these are a direct outgrowth of their parenting (or lack of such)....I don't know though that any LAWYERS would benefit from oweness being cast onto the parents....MAYbe the defense might i.e: "it ain't all the kids fault cuz these kids got some really messed up parents".


The defense lawyers are gonna, under the guise of "getting the truths of this case out"......they are gonna dismantle Phoebe Prince. Whats coming....its gonna shock alot of people. They will also attack her Mom and possibly other family members, back in Ireland....its gonna get bad....only way this doesn't happen is if these cases don't go to trial and even then it still may occur in an effort to lessen the heat on the six.

I hope that the same attention to "getting out the truth" is devoted to the truths about the parents of these kids cuz, like, only so rarely does one hear anything at all about what responsibility the parents of these kids might bear for their children's actions....I am puzzled by this. I broke many windows when I was a minor, everytime people came to see my folks :( demanded that they pay for the window(s).

I never tormented anyone and told them to go hang themselves. Thats more serious than breaking a window. Did society at some point decide that parental responsibility was no longer gonna be observed? If so....I totally missed the memo about that. I thought it was still applicable.

To me parental responsibility, when a kid torments a girl to death is some thing that people need to be discussing with NEAR the same intensity as they are talking about what the school's responsibility in this is.

I am a bit peeved that this is not happening. And don't say this will take place possibly more near the "Civil Trial" phase of this cuz if what these defense layers are gonna try to do "flies" there ain't gonna be no Civil Trials...'cept maybe against the school but that'll just get settled outta court for about 500K, maybe a mil.....'nother family got 800K in Michigan.....thats about the going rate I guess for schools choosing to not protect kids.

I personally believe that the balloons the lawyers will float out there are gonna have legs, especially with the "moral compasses" on the Phoebe bandwagon, Conservative Christians are gonna fall right out their seats. Alotta other people, even liberals, are gonna have a "pause". It ain't gonna be pretty. Nearly everyone should come out of this realizing they got taken for a ride by the media, who should have just reported....like journalists are supposed to do.

This case has opened alot of eyes about the seriousness of bullying, hopefully the momentum thats been achieved to address this problem will not be stunted by some lawyers and a media that made a conscious decision to report just the aspects of a story that were gonna be most conducive to getting you to tune in, register, comment and read or buy their papers....

hopefully this case will open eyes to what journalism has become in this country. Really, Walter Cronkite would lose it on these people.
 
This is who Mullins and Velasquez got all territorial over? A real catch.

Velasquez was just a "henchman" as was Longe for the other team. Look at Velasquez and Longe or spare yourself the unpleasantness of looking at them and just trust that these 2 girls truly despised everything about Phoebe Prince....hated her with every ounce of their beings.

She represented all that they were not and could never ever never ever ever be.


Phoebe could have had any boy in that school that she wanted which was not true of any of the girls that tormented her and especially untrue of Longe and Velasquez. None of those girls had any prayer of "competing" with Pheebz.

And they knew this from the very first moment they saw her.

Outta nowhere....................."Game Over."

Its little known that bullying began actually prior to the Sean incident when Phoebe was hassled for participating in class and turning in her homework on time which got her praise from a teacher. I'm not sure who was involved in that initial bullying, led to believe it was Longe but don't know for sure.

Hard to imagine a sea monster launching attack on such a fair maiden I mean...wouldn't that just draw attention to the "differences'" between them...

seems like I'd've laid low if I was Longe....like tried to draw as little attention to my hideous self as possible but Longe may not be anywhere near the sharpest tool in the shed.

Where regards "competing" with Phoebe, on any of these girl's parts...not only could they not do it but there wasn't a competition anyway....beyond the one in their heads.........the poor deluded low self esteem having savages.

Phoebe didn't want anything that was "theirs". This I got from a student: When Phoebe found out Sean and Kayla were (whatever they were, this kid used the term bf/gf) and became aware that Sean had gotten her into a situation with Kayla....Phoebe went to Kayla and said that she was sorry and Kayla said "don't worry about it". Phoebe said she wasn't gonn a see Sean no more. Longe wasn't about to let it slide.

Sean wasn't even her man. Longe's, that is.

Phoebe just wanted friends

and to have fun like any girl her age......would.

These things above make this "event" unshakably sad...whatever comes to pass...the sadness present within the merciless torment of this 14/early15 year old girl who all she wanted was to have friends......and enjoy her childhood....


that sadness is never gonna leave.
 
Good to see you, Dr. Phail. :)

Now, this qoute from the Boston Herald has a little more info...
Renaud was parked along the side of the road at about 3 a.m. Sunday with his hazard lights flashing when Holyoke police pulled up behind him.

Renaud told them he had a flat tire after hitting a curb, but in her report, Officer Kristin Leary wrote that he smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred and he was swaying on his feet. He submitted to a Breathalyzer test, which showed he had a blood-alcohol content of .15, nearly twice the legal limit, the report stated.

Leary, a former South Hadley officer, asked Renaud why his name sounded familiar.

“He stated that his name is all over the paper for another incident,” she wrote.

Leary stated in her report that she had encountered Renaud in several incidents when he lived in South Hadley, but she did not elaborate. Neither Holyoke nor Eastern Hampshire District Court, which has jurisdiction over South Hadley cases, has any prior record of Renaudbeing charged as an adult. Juvenile records typically are not public
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1248801
 
I swear this town is situated in some sort of bizzarro land where bad is good and being decent is the kiss of death. AR was drinking underage and driving and the townies don't bat an eyelash. he was fined 40 bucks?!?!! Are we sure this city isn't in another dimension ?? I'm just so confused by the action of these people.

LOL! THANK YOU! :woohoo:

THAT'S exactly how I feel! "Bizzarro land"! So happy it's not just me...I'm Canadian, so I thought...'well, maybe...this is normal to some Americans'... But it's NOT, I'm finding...it's a relief...lol...:)
 
Also, O/T......but related to bullying and children attacking their peers, Michael B, the boy who was set on fire in FL returned to school today! He said he got bored being at home and playing video games!
 
You know what is really strange about that quote????? There is no such thing as a legal limit of blood alcohol for an 18 year old!

jmoo
In "Bizzarro land" things are different :crazy: ...there was no charge for drinking underage...just DUI...freaking amazing!
 
OK...Leary is a former South Hadley cop who has "dealt with Renaud on several prior occasions" and Holyoke is a stone's throw, literally next friggin' door to South Hadley which has been embroiled for 100 days now in by far the biggest news story, possibly CRIME in the history of the area.....

.....and Leary asks Renaud why his name sounded familiar???



Lets have a car wash to earn some duckies to buy Officer Leary a Television.

Not a modern Hi-Def 1080p or Plasma but just a tube one, like, 32 inches. We should be able to get one of those for, like, 40 bucks on Craigslist....only have to wash, like, 4 cars maybe 3.5 cars.

Howz a cop next door to SH not know why "Austin Renaud" sounds familiar to her?

And people, yeah, $40 bail is absurd, an insult but be comforted in the fact that the gavel will fall on this kid.....as it does on all who are deserving....might not be here, might not be in the stat rape case but the gavel will fall on Austin Renaud.

'specially if the story about him laughing when informed of Phoebe's death is true.....lot more than a "gavel" gonna fall on him cuz the universe don't abide well a lack of compassion.
 
Could it be, to charge underage drinking, the law demands a kid be seen drinking?? or caught with alcohol? Seems dumb I know but I too am wondering why no "underage drinking" charge.....maybe a OUI charge supersedes such a charge?

Gotta be an explanation as one would think that the last thing Holyoke wants is to be dragged into the mess of perceived "favoritism" or whatever....

just tossing out some ideas...I have no idea what Mass. law is on these matters.
 
Could it be, to charge underage drinking, the law demands a kid be seen drinking?? or caught with alcohol? Seems dumb I know but I too am wondering why no "underage drinking" charge.....maybe a OUI charge supersedes such a charge?

Gotta be an explanation as one would think that the last thing Holyoke wants is to be dragged into the mess of perceived "favoritism" or whatever....

just tossing out some ideas...I have no idea what Mass. law is on these matters.
No idea but the fact that there might have been no alcohol present is a good thought...we do have some posters that are more versed in the law. I hope they will pipe up and give us some insight on that...
 
I have sent a pm to one of our professional posters, a lawyer, asking about the underage drinking situation...I'll post if they respond through pm personally. But maybe they'll post. :)
 
I do not know what the laws in MA, but here, there are two different charges that are used for underage drinking. One is a Minor in Possession charge for when they actually have alcohol in hand or on their person, in their car etc. The other is a Minor in Consumption charge for when they are identified to have a BA level, or otherwise do not pass a sobriety test. As far as I know, there are no set "levels" required, only that the officer can confirm that they have been drinking....even if it is one beer.

jmoo
 
I pm'ed a member who gave me some much needed guidance on this. Apparently, MASS has OUI (operating under the influence) for under 21's, that's what Renaud was charged with, he wasn't DRIVING when found by police, he had his hazzards on. If he was caught with alcohol there would/could have been another charge for alcohol but there is none mentioned anywhere in Renauds reports I've read. Here's a handy, dandy booklet to help explain OUI/DUI in MASS...SO...I was wrong...this is normal...I eat crow...;) good thing I like crow, I feel like I've been eating alot, lately...lol...;)

http://www.mass.gov/norfolkda/PDF Brochures/Alcohol Booklet.pdf
 
Sigh...

What is wrong with these kids?

With pending charges, going out drinking and driving is the last thing I'd be doing.
 
I personally believe that the balloons the lawyers will float out there are gonna have legs, especially with the "moral compasses" on the Phoebe bandwagon, Conservative Christians are gonna fall right out their seats. Alotta other people, even liberals, are gonna have a "pause". It ain't gonna be pretty. Nearly everyone should come out of this realizing they got taken for a ride by the media, who should have just reported....like journalists are supposed to do.

Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean when you say "Nearly everyone should come out of this realizing they got taken for a ride by the media" - Do you know something that you are not posting?
 
I read at Litterbox, from SK, that Renaud lives on his own. At 18. And he showed up to court alone...no parent or family.

I think a little responsibilty needs to be laid at the feet of his Mother. Where IS she? Where is his family?

This is the only person charged I find myself feeling a little sympathy for...
 
Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean when you say "Nearly everyone should come out of this realizing they got taken for a ride by the media"

Nothing that is being "bandied about"....that certain of the kid's lawyers might do, where regards attacking Phoebe, seems relevant to the charges against these kids, to my knowledge anyway, beyond MAYbe the "civil rights violation with bodily harm?????" if that even is how that charge is worded and IF the bodily harm part refers to Phoebe's suicide....I think it doesn't, maybe it does....

....thats the puzzling thing to me anyway about what would be "gained" by some lawyers in (attempting a) trashing (of ) Phoebe's name...

I guess they sour the public (thus a jury???) on the victim??

Exactly HOW would this benefit their client???? I'm stumped.

This is definitely a conversation we need to have here because we all have to understand if trashing Phoebe could help the defense and if it would possibly be a "good strategy" we have to get ready cuz thats whats gonna go down.

I am no legal mind though but I see no benefit to trashing Phoebe, to the extent that they can even succeed in doing that which is far from a "given".

Even if (and I certainly don't know this to be the case...nowhere even close to that...just hypothesizing) but even if toxicology showed drugs in her system (again TOTALLY I don't know any thing of this sort and it hasn't even been suggested to me) but saying that happened and they could cast doubt on circumstances that led to her suicide....establishing such would not impact upon the FACT that these monsters terrorized her....would it???

Thats what they are charged with...RIGHT...not murdering her....

at least not yet ;) Kris is still working on that :)

.....when I said I felt some of what they might raise "would have legs" you can take that to mean that its my belief that just by getting talk stirred up about something they may succeed in distracting some people from the heinousness of what these kids did to Phoebe... IMO some would believe just from hearing something true or not....hard to disprove a negative.....and if innuendo about Pheebz having been a drug user (TRUE OR NOT) were to be placed into the public consciousness the "moral compasses" I mentioned would be right off support of The Phoebe Prince Support Train and likely also off the Getting Bullying Addressed Bandwagon which could only add up to more kids dying :(

I am trying not to even think about what the defense attorneys might resort to....just don't want people who have come to care about this girl to be surprised if they make an effort to trash Phoebe because if they do that I foresee a massive sh*tstorm.


It was the bullying PERIOD that led to her death...

if she is NOT tormented by these demons she does not die.

So, I mean...thats why I say I don't see how trashing her is gonna help them...how Phoebe's situation would have any relevance at all to these charges.

I feel like those that DO see potential gain in blaspheming The Prince name are thinking along the lines of NO SUICIDE = NO CHARGES which may be a reasonable train of thought.....one cannot know....

but NOW that charges EXIST I am trying to tell these people that whatever (IF ANY AT ALL) character assassination can be "accomplished" DOESN'T FRIGGIN MATTER.

Irrelevant. Perhaps our legal mind can give us insight on this.....I'm prolly wrong :(

In case I am wrong and tarnishing Phoebe would be a potentially productive legal strategy....I'll paint some broad strokes momentarily of what they might "suggest" but NO WAY am I broaching "specifics" because all I have I heard from others and the only way I'd go specific with a thing I heard is if I heard it from Pheebz and that of course ain't gonna be happening...

Again, most of the reason I am concerned about the soiling Phoebe approach, as of now at least while I believe doing so would not help the accused, is that if some lawyers go the route of scandalizing Phoebe or even just succeed in causing WONDER....doubt, they will surely cause some to not be as enthusiastic as they are at this moment about getting laws in place to deal with bullying and another kid has to die bcuz friggin lawyers feel like they can "absolve" their client(s) by attempting to defame Phoebe Prince and her family when, as Paladine will be quick to point out, she is not here to defend herself and its entirely possible, heck PROBABLE that what they'll say is totally untrue or at the least well exaggerated. .

All I got is what I was told, by several parties and among these a family member of one of the accused (of bullying) or someone who said they were that.......who knows who is who they say they are....I didn't know Phoebe wish I had....I'd think if it was just a family member saying this stuff that maybe they themselves are trying their own propaganda campaign against Phoebe....but I have heard from others some of he same stuff....

The gist of it, as I have it anyway, is that they will paint her as a drug user with a history of depression, "mania" more specifically...manic depressive (I guess...that parts just a guess from me, all that was said is "history of depression") theres ruminations about a past suicide attempt though no one seems to know about such beyond a particular lawyer....abusive home life (not sure if that refers to here or before, in Ireland...gotta be Ireland...I would think anyway)....I'd imagine whatever they can possibly use, true or false, accurate or exaggerated....they will put out there.....those things there are the main things I heard that the lawyers may "use"....

By us "coming out on the other end of this feeling as though the media had taken us for a ride" I meant that they have heard, just as I have, the talk about things that might get said by whomever to try and tarnish Phoebe and they knew (know) aLOT more specifics than damn near anyone else (certainly me)....I just feel that they should have put the potential of what they may even know to be true and that has the chance to become a consideration in this matter out there rather than whatever they are dong by NOT REPORTING this....will equal alot of people getting "blindsided" by some stuff. Again....if the lawyers take the low road....

If they DO I just wanna have people who have come to care about this girl prepared SHIELDS UP in case these scoundrels take even the first step which would likely be the drug (ab)use talk.....I suspect it would start with that....also I am worried about the fervor for addressing bullying being caused to "die down" because of some lawyers talkin' trash.

My view on it is, like Paladine has said and others too, makes no difference what Phoebe's "deal" was the bullying caused her to take her life. Period end of story.


and I don't see how blaspheming Phoebe's name is gonna make a judge or jury say "OK, that makes you innocent of tormenting her" because they did it they are guilty all there is to talk about IMO is SENTENCING.


Paladine ask your legal expert if (s)he could see potential benefit to these defendants by the lawyers trashing Phoebe....

we should establish ONCE AND FOR ALL if they would be wise to take this path.

though, you know, sincerely....wisdom does not enter into the equation where Sharon's lawyer is concerned so if your legal eagle says "no there would be no wisdom in this" that'd likely equate to Sharon's attorney doing just that.

Prolly they'll be stunned at the stupidity of the question...might be an obvious thing to a legal person :)

hopefully it won't come to that....just sayin if it does don't let it catch you by surprise....

I think ya'll were pretty much already there anyway but best to be sure. :)
 
Well, Dr. Phail, everything I've read indicates it's a perilous strategy. I will ask though...

I think we need to remember and stress one thing...they are NOT being charged with her suicide. The jury will be asked if she was harassed or stalked. HOW or WHY she died is not relevant to these charges, from my understanding. Although, there are those who say if she didn't die, they wouldn't have been charged. I just do not see where that thinking brings us. They are charged. They are charged with stalking. Did they stalk? They are charged with harassment preventing her from attending school. Did they harass her? Seems simple, to me.

I truly feel...and hope...any negative press and spin will be quickly dissolved at trail, imo, once the FULL DEPTH of their actions become clear...
 
So now we know 2 of these kid's parents died?

Within the last 3 years?




Like, when they were 15 years old (Austin) and 13 (Kayla)?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
3,748
Total visitors
3,926

Forum statistics

Threads
591,835
Messages
17,959,810
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top