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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not see how giving him probation and forced to live in a spa like setting is going to get him fixed. They claim he suffers from affluenza yet they just gave him what he wanted..... freedom after killing 4. So not only can he blame his parents next time he does something wrong but he can also blame his lawyer and this judge.
 
InALandFarFarAway said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since he might have a license now he may be listed as a driver.

gitana1 said:
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.

Totally agree.



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.



You better believe that.

I would think that's obvious to everyone except those who deify the rich and think they've earned it.



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.

Good analogy! :thumb:



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

Wow! Just wow! Well that one will be hard to explain at the pearly gates.

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



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



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.

I saw that too and my jaw literally dropped.



Well, it's the money, of course.
Click to expand...

My responses in red.

ATasteOfHoney said:
"Affluenza" <------ so cute that it almost sounds like a real affliction.


:banghead:
Click to expand...

...You're so afraid to catch a dose of affluenza. You live your life like a canary in a coal mine, you get so dizzy even walking in a straight line....

Apologies to Sting.

LambChop said:
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
Click to expand...

The Fiat commercial with Charlie Sheen saying that "House Arrest" isn't that bad is in very poor taste. I don't see it anymore and it may have been pulled.
 
LOL. Steely, I was thinking of a well-known actress but Charlie also came to mind. I don't think he will ever grow up, and frankly he just doesn't care if he ever does.
 
Looks like this judge did try to push rehab for the other boy as well just no one wanted to take him. Though I do bet money played a part in finding a "rehab" facility that would take the drunk driving teen.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Deci...about-judges-previous-decision-235688241.html

"She wanted to send him to one of these special places in Arizona, but no one would take him," Lauterbach said. "We were horrified. We just couldn't believe it. The district attorney and I were just sitting on pins and needles. But, when nobody would take him, [it was] a sigh of relief."
Click to expand...
 
Ladylub said:
Looks like this judge did try to push rehab for the other boy as well just no one wanted to take him. Though I do bet money played a part in finding a "rehab" facility that would take the drunk driving teen.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Deci...about-judges-previous-decision-235688241.html
Click to expand...

Of course it comes down to money. "Victim of affluenza's" father is willing to pay nearly half a million for the treatment per year. Vast majority of people could never afford anything like that.
So the poor ones would be shipped of to jail, while rich ones will be shipped off to a spa-like facility.
 
Karmady said:
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
Click to expand...

Intent is not the only issue when it comes to the sentences judge's decide. Past history as well as actual harm caused is also a consideration. In the knock out case, yes, the kid intended to cause harm, but nothing close to the harm that resulted from his action. In this case, the kid didn't intend to cause harm but was so grossly reckless in his conduct that he showed he didn't care if actual harm occurred, nor to what degree. His past history of criminal activity shows that as well. Finally, 4 people died and one is permanently disabled.

When all the various factors are combined, this kid should have been given at least a similar sentence to the poor one.

Karmady said:
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).
Click to expand...

So what? The decision to get in one's vehicle while wasted and recklessly and selfishly risk lives, carries the potential for heavy penalties for a reason. You do understand that this case has gone viral precisely because the decision of the judge here was so outlandish and so different from the norm in similar such cases?

He received special treatment. It's not about whether this should be treated like a first degree murder case. It's about why this wasn't treated like every other vehuclar manslaughter case.
 
I really want the family of each and every one of those injured or killed innocent people to sue the family for millions.

Drag this out in public in courts for months for everyone to hear about this kid and this family that is so disgusting.

And, of course, I want the injured and wronged to prevail
 
jjenny said:
"Essentially what he has done is slapped this child on the wrist for what is obviously a very serious offense which he would be responsible for in any other situation," Buffone said. "The defense is laughable, the disposition is horrifying ... not only haven't the parents set any consequences, but it's being reinforced by the judge's actions."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/affluenza-slammed-as-defense-for-wealthy-texas-teens-fatal-dwi-wreck/
Click to expand...


It's horrific. This judge just basically sent the message that the lives this creep ruined were worthless and that his is so much more precious. I can't imagine how she sleeps at night. I feel so sickened and sad for the families.
 
This was not his first offense for drinking. But he gets go on your way don't kill anyone else sentence. A clear divide between the have's and the have not's. When he's twenty one or finishes his probation can this be expunged from his record? Jmt

Ciao
 
nightwatch said:
This was not his first offense for drinking. But he gets go on your way don't kill anyone else sentence. A clear divide between the have's and the have not's. When he's twenty one or finishes his probation can this be expunged from his record? Jmt

Ciao
Click to expand...

His probation goes until he is 26.. 10 years.

And I don't think this is about the haves and have nots rather the judge who ruled ridiculously.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
His probation goes until he is 26.. 10 years.

And I don't think this is about the haves and have nots rather the judge who ruled ridiculously.
Click to expand...

Don't the judges usually give out lighter sentences to juveniles who did not intentionally kill someone? With 10 years probation if he doesn't learn his lesson he will reoffend and end up with 20 years for violating his probation and reoffending. jmo
 
gitana1 said:
It's horrific. This judge just basically sent the message that the lives this creep ruined were worthless and that his is so much more precious. I can't imagine how she sleeps at night. I feel so sickened and sad for the families.
Click to expand...

Maybe because of something I can't say due to TOS.

ScarlettScarpetta said:
His probation goes until he is 26.. 10 years.

And I don't think this is about the haves and have nots rather the judge who ruled ridiculously.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think this is a poster case for the haves getting away with murder, literally. JMO
 
gitana1 said:
So what? The decision to get in one's vehicle while wasted and recklessly and selfishly risk lives, carries the potential for heavy penalties for a reason. You do understand that this case has gone viral precisely because the decision of the judge here was so outlandish and so different from the norm in similar such cases?

He received special treatment. It's not about whether this should be treated like a first degree murder case. It's about why this wasn't treated like every other vehiclular manslaughter case.
Click to expand...

My post was specifically talking about a comparison that was made between this case and another where a minor was sentenced harshly for an intentional assualt that resulted in someone's death. Not a comparison of two of the same type of cases.
 
Karmady said:
My post was specifically talking about a comparison that was made between this case and another where a minor was sentenced harshly for an intentional assualt that resulted in someone's death. Not a comparison of two of the same type of cases.
Click to expand...

The person committing this "intentional assault" presumably didn't want to kill the victim either, but to knock the victim out.
But if you knock someone out, that person might end up dead.
The same goes for driving drunk.
Drunk driver might not intend to kill anyone, but driving drunk can lead to someone ending up dead.
Which is why drunk driving often results in severe penalties.
 
jjenny said:
The person committing this "intentional assault" presumably didn't want to kill the victim either, but to knock the victim out.
But if you knock someone out, that person might end up dead.
The same goes for driving drunk.
Drunk driver might not intend to kill anyone, but driving drunk can lead to someone ending up dead.
Which is why drunk driving often results in severe penalties.
Click to expand...

It isn't the same in the criminal law. Which continues to be my only point. Sentencing someone for an intent crime and for a non-intent crime are two totally different things. I'm sure plenty of people agree with your point and I'm sure that argument has been made by MADD and others for a very long time. But right now, DUI vehicular homicide is not the same under the law as a specific intent crime like aggravated assault. Which is part of the reason the judge had very wide latitude in his sentencing, and even wider latitude since he is a juvenile. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,593 (members: 193, guests: 3,400)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,400
Total visitors
3,593
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,695
Messages
17,957,613
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top