The glorious US justice system prevails once again!

[Potjeh]

Running into a slippery patch of road and losing control is an accident. Driving drunk and doped up is a choice.

[dagrimreefah]

Running into a slippery patch of road and losing control is an accident. Driving drunk and doped up is a choice.

But his plowing into those 4 people was still unintended. It was not premeditated murder, no matter how you'd like to twist it to suit your moral grandstanding.

Using your logic: If I killed someone by losing control on ice, I still made the CHOICE of driving while it was icy, so I should be convicted of murder?

[overtyped]

You disgust me lol. So then, how much money is a life worth to you then?
For example, if i hit someone with my car and they die, how much do i have to pay to make it go away?

Nice loaded bullshit question. How many years of this young man's life in jail is a life worth? See how stupid your question is? I hope so...
As I said, if the families wish to get compensated for it, they have other options. Such as suing. Just stating the facts. No need to get all pseudo-righteous on me.

Here's the texas law for drunk driving vehicular homicide
2 to 20 years
Intoxication Manslaughter
: Second degree felony, not less than 2 years or more than 20 years and may be fined
not more than $10,000
*Time is listed as approximate as an offender may be charged with
other crimes which may add on to the sentence.

Guess which other crimes that is? driving without a license, negligence, going 70 in a 40 zone, while on valium and drunk, right before slamming into 4 people, and you think it's not worth sending that poor 16 year old to prison for it?

For this kids case, he would be imprisoned for at least 20 years, but probably much longer.

[dagrimreefah]

You disgust me lol. So then, how much money is a life worth to you then?
For example, if i hit someone with my car and they die, how much do i have to pay to make it go away?

Nice loaded bullshit question. How many years of this young man's life in jail is a life worth? See how stupid your question is? I hope so...
As I said, if the families wish to get compensated for it, they have other options. Such as suing. Just stating the facts. No need to get all pseudo-righteous on me.

Here's the texas law for drunk driving vehicular homicide
2 to 20 years
Intoxication Manslaughter
: Second degree felony, not less than 2 years or more than 20 years and may be fined
not more than $10,000
*Time is listed as approximate as an offender may be charged with
other crimes which may add on to the sentence.

Guess which other crimes that is? driving without a license, negligence, going 70 in a 40 zone, while on valium and drunk, right before slamming into 4 people, and you think it's not worth sending that poor 16 year old to prison for it?

Little Billy, he was convicted of those. Most likely his prison sentence was SUSPENDED, which means probation. The judge has the right to do that kind of thing you know. Blame the judge, not the entire justice system. Keep in mind though, he IS only 16. The judge probably took this into consideration when sentencing.

[overtyped]

Little Billy, he was convicted of those. Most likely his prison sentence was SUSPENDED, which means probation. The judge has the right to do that kind of thing you know. Blame the judge, not the entire justice system. Keep in mind though, he IS only 16. The judge probably took this into consideration when sentencing.

Ok, now to get to the punchline of this farce. That same judge just recently sent a 14 year old to prison for 10 years for punching someone, and that person fell back and hit their head on the ground and died. That was more of an accident than driving intoxicated and high 70 miles in a 40 zone and then slamming into 4 people killing all of them.

This is my last post arguing this point, I think your head is a little too thick to understand the gravity of this crime.

[dagrimreefah]

Ok, now to get to the punchline of this farce. That same judge just recently sent a 14 year old to prison for 10 years for punching someone, and that person fell back and hit their head on the ground and died. That was more of an accident than driving intoxicated and high 70 miles in a 40 zone and then slamming into 4 people killing all of them.

This is my last post arguing this point, I think your head is a little too thick to understand the gravity of this crime.

Well, hearing that, I do agree with you that this judge is a slimy piece of trash that should be removed. That IS a travesty of justice. But your skull is too thick to understand that
A) This is a kid who made a dumb mistake and
B) This wasn't murder.

[overtyped]

Ok, now to get to the punchline of this farce. That same judge just recently sent a 14 year old to prison for 10 years for punching someone, and that person fell back and hit their head on the ground and died. That was more of an accident than driving intoxicated and high 70 miles in a 40 zone and then slamming into 4 people killing all of them.

This is my last post arguing this point, I think your head is a little too thick to understand the gravity of this crime.

Well, hearing that, I do agree with you that this judge is a slimy piece of trash that should be removed. That IS a travesty of justice. But your skull is too thick to understand that
A) This is a kid who made a dumb mistake and
B) This wasn't murder.

Call it whatever you like, intoxicated vehicular manslaughter is fine too.

[MagicManICT]

Running into a slippery patch of road and losing control is an accident. Driving drunk and doped up is a choice.

But his plowing into those 4 people was still unintended. It was not premeditated murder, no matter how you'd like to twist it to suit your moral grandstanding.

Using your logic: If I killed someone by losing control on ice, I still made the CHOICE of driving while it was icy, so I should be convicted of murder?

To note, the appropriate term is Vehicular Homicide. Some states have taken it to calling it murder because the driver made many choices that has a high probability of leading to death. I'm not sure I completely agree, but then I don't really disagree, either.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Should it be illegal to drive on the ice? Should it not be illegal to drive under the influence of mind altering substances? How many people die every year from auto collisions on ice? How many died from DUI/DWIs in the 70s (before harsh penalties for driving under the influence)? Today? Are you arguing just to argue? Yes, grammatically you are correct that, by definition, it is not "murder" as it was not premeditated, but then neither is me going into a rage and bludgeoning you to death with a tire iron after having a heated argument--still called murder in the press.

No, running into a slippery patch of road and losing control is not an accident. You made a choice to get out and drive that day. You drove faster than road conditions allow. If you kill someone under those conditions, there's a good chance you could face vehicular homicide charges, too, at least around my neck of the woods.

[quote="overtyped"
Ok, now to get to the punchline of this farce. That same judge just recently sent a 14 year old to prison for 10 years for punching someone, and that person fell back and hit their head on the ground and died. That was more of an accident than driving intoxicated and high 70 miles in a 40 zone and then slamming into 4 people killing all of them.[/quote]

Unfortunately, in too many jurisdictions, judges are elected by the public who have little to no clue about who or how the judges do their job. I don't know about other locations, but all too often judges run unopposed here, and so even if they are the worst judge on the bench at the time, they still get reelected.

[dagrimreefah]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Should it be illegal to drive on the ice? Should it not be illegal to drive under the influence of mind altering substances? How many people die every year from auto collisions on ice? How many died from DUI/DWIs in the 70s (before harsh penalties for driving under the influence)? Today? Are you arguing just to argue?

I'm arguing that it is not murder, and therefore it was correct that he was not convicted as a murderer, as others' wished he was.

I would like to add that I also personally feel that his sentence was exceptionally light. A harsher sentence should've been in order and obviously money won this shitty judge over.

[overtyped]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. Should it be illegal to drive on the ice? Should it not be illegal to drive under the influence of mind altering substances? How many people die every year from auto collisions on ice? How many died from DUI/DWIs in the 70s (before harsh penalties for driving under the influence)? Today? Are you arguing just to argue?

I'm arguing that it is not murder, and therefore it was correct that he was not convicted as a murderer, as others' wished he was.

I would like to add that I also personally feel that his sentence was exceptionally light. A harsher sentence should've been in order and obviously money won this shitty judge over.

What sentence are you speaking of? the judge pretty much just let him go.