Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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]
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 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.
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.
I have to disagree. I don't think that a poor, drunk kid would have been sent o a treatment facility.
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.
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.
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.
Anderson cooper just said the rehab facility's schedule would be cooking classes,martial arts training,riding horses and beach access.
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
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
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).
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.
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).
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?
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.