drunk kid kils 4 injures 11 no jail time

[Captain Kremmen]

So, Kremmen, why are you concerned about this kid, and not the maids in the Saatchi case?

Just asking.
Not flogging dead horses or anything, you understand.

I don't think my views are contradictory. Serious crimes require a punitive sentence.

I made the point that sometimes what makes a crime serious or not can be a matter of chance.
That's a fact of life.
Example.
Someone may be in the habit of texting while driving.
They might do that for years and cause no problem at all.
But if one day they run over a chap crossing the road, they should spend time in jail for it.

The boy got drunk and was responsible for deaths. He should go to prison.
If the PA's have stolen money from an employer, they need to go to prison.

The latter case isn't finished yet, so we need to wait and see what happens.

Added later.
I see that the PA's were found innocent.

 

[Read-Only]

The Marquis is little more than a troll in this thread. Although several folks have strayed a bit from the straight line, this thread was originally started about *ONE* case - and not others. If you want to get right down to it, there's PLENTY of inequities in our court systems! So if he/she wants to cry about THAT he/she can go elsewhere with it.

 

[Bells]

Heh. "Trouble with the staff". Says... everything. About you. About every other poster in this thread.

Yes, it says I don't read entertainment pages.

So I do not even know the particulars of this case.

I think, Bells, that you don't have the ability to put yourself in their shoes and understand where the miscarriage of justice actually lies.

If you are going to compare crimes and even the law when it comes to killing 4 people and injuring 11 to two maids? Assistants? Chefs? I don't even know who they are.. committing fraud with their employees credit cards, then the premise of your argument already falls flat. Embarrassingly so.

And isn't this what this thread is about, at its core? A miscarriage of justice? Isn't that what we're talking about, here?

Yes, detailing one particular case.

I'm not going to open a thread about it. I'm only going to observe what other people open threads about, by comparison with what they might have opened a thread about, if they had any sense of balance. Do you not know that, by now?

At the moment, I am only trying to figure out why you demand we read the entertainment pages.

Do you know the exact particulars of the case of Lawson and her staff? Evidence given to the court?

A hundred threads about why this kid should be in gaol. Not one about why the maids should be.

There's only one thread about this kid. So what exactly are you on about?

And again, if you are going to compare a fraud case where two maids? misused their employers credit cards to a case where a kid plowed his car into a bunch of people and killed 4 while injuring 11 and gets a much lighter sentence because he is rich, then you will fall face down in the dirt. The 'think of the poor rich people' whine in this particular case, in a discussion where someone was not sent to jail because he is so wealthy is in poor taste. Should the maids have gone to jail if they stole money from their employers, yes they should have. No one is saying they should not do so because their employers are wealthy. So I don't even know where you are getting this from. But if you expect people to trawl through the papers around the world to make sure every single similar case is covered for balance, then expect yourself to be a very disappointed man.

I don't care about justice, Bells. Only about why you think one case is more important than the other.

Why do you assume I said one case is more important than the other?

I said they are completely different, dealing with different aspects of the law and frankly, a case where a kid kills 4 and injures 11 is nowhere near a case of 2 maids stealing money from their employers. You can't compare them. Completely different animals. Are both important? Certainly, because both, in their way, will set a nasty precedent and one that no society should have to contend with. One involves the law deeming rich people being incapable of being responsible for their crimes because they are rich and the other deems stealing from wealthy people if there is a problem within the household (I am assuming there is in this case, the article you linked mentioned drug abuse?) is acceptable. Are both miscarriages of justice, certainly. Is it worthy of discussion. Yes. Should it be in this thread or any other thread discussing miscarriage of justice? Maybe, if used as a comparison and not a whine about 'why aren't you talking about this instead'.

And, so far, not a single poster who even gets what I'm on about.

I don't think you even get what you're on about.

 

[joepistole]

My mother had a "no tube feeding order" on file, but the nursing home refused to honor it. They knew that we lived 600 miles away so we couldn't just drive over there and start kicking ass.

It took us two weeks to arrange the trip, and by that time she had finally expired. Ironically, it was due to inspiration of food during a tube feeding! She had already lost most of her brain power and memories. She had no idea who Mrs. Fraggle was, and called her by my first wife's name, whom she hadn't seen in 30 years. She was really embarrassed to behave that way, and it was obvious that she didn't want any more visitors to see her like that.

Someone told me that, at least here in the USA, DNR orders are routinely ignored because every year about ten medical professionals are successfully sued for honoring them. It's considered the worst sort of malpractice, so that doctor, nurse, orderly, paramedic, etc. will never be able to work again.

On the other hand, no one has ever been successfully sued for ignoring a DNR! And even if this happens some day, I doubt very much that it will be a career buster.

The "helium balloon" technology is all the rage. There was a long article on it in the Washington Post Sunday supplement a couple of years ago, by a doctor who shows people how to do it. He had been prosecuted twice but in both cases the jury refused to convict him because he did not actually participate in the death, but merely explained it. Since then the courts have left him alone.

It involves tying a sturdy plastic bag around your neck, with a tube from a party-balloon helium tank securely fastened inside. The bag needn't be perfectly sealed, since the helium will rise and force all the oxygen out the bottom. All of the paraphernalia are easily purchased without raising suspicion, and can be kept in storage for years. And unlike most other ways of committing suicide (except guns, which in the hands of an amateur shooter might result in a painful, lingering expiration or permanent brain damage) you can change your mind right up until the last moment of consciousness. And you don't need enough helium to fill the entire room.

[Note to the Moderator: since the Stone Age U.S. legal system refuses to prosecute people for actually doing this, there can't be any risk to SciForums for allowing it to be merely discussed.]

My experience was a bit different. I had an aunt who suffered from dementia. Most people don't realize it, but it is a horrible way to go. My first patient as a corpsman in the Navy was a terminal cancer patient. I thought nothing could be worse, but after going through an experience with my aunt, dementia is just a bad. She lived in fear, confusion and depression even with the best of medication and care. In her more lucid moments, she knew something was wrong but she didn't know what and that caused her great fear and confusion. It was sad and tragic to watch her go through her end of life. She and I were fortunate in that I was able to get her some very good hospice care. The paramedics, the physicians, nurses and everyone were very good at honoring the DNR and managing her end of life issues. The nursing home was first rate.

 

[Undefined]

I don't think my views are contradictory. Serious crimes require a punitive sentence.

I made the point that sometimes what makes a crime serious or not can be a matter of chance.
That's a fact of life.
Example.
Someone may be in the habit of texting while driving.
They might do that for years and cause no problem at all.
But if one day they run over a chap crossing the road, they should spend time in jail for it.

The boy got drunk and was responsible for deaths. He should go to prison.
If the PA's have stolen money from an employer, they need to go to prison.

The latter case isn't finished yet, so we need to wait and see what happens.

Added later.
I see that the PA's were found innocent.

Hi Cap.

I wonder what the 'fine line' is between someone (Nigella) offering 'hush money' because she feared the PA's would 'talk', and someone (her PA's) accepting 'hush money' because of some implied threat (tacit extortion?) that they will otherwise have no reason NOT to talk and expose her personal secrets, and make some money selling Nigella's secrets to the media/court. Tricky, hey!

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I'm sure that the books will be out soon enough.
I won't be buying any.

 

[sifreak21]

I'm 70. Time to decide how I'm going to die, before the accountants and attorneys who run a nursing home siphon off my entire estate in a quixotic attempt to keep my body alive for as long as possible.

When's the last time you heard of a child resisting peer pressure and doing what's right instead? Especially if they're drunk!

Children are famous for believing that they're immortal.

Since we've wiped out the worst childhood diseases, the leading causes of death for teenagers are now road accidents, suicide, homicide, and overdosing on legal drugs they find in their momma's medicine cabinet. (I don't have those in sequential order, but I'm pretty sure road accidents are #1.)

Oddly, the one risk about which teenagers are wiser than their parents is driving while texting. They've lived their entire lives with computer technology, so apparently they understand its effect on other cognitive skills better than their elders.

Texting makes you four times as likely to die in a road accident. This means that if you do it, the probability is 1 in 25 that the cause of your death will be a road accident.

I see what your saying but laws are not written to take into account your wealth or how you were raised. I gaurentee if he was raised the identical way but very very poor he would be on death row right now.. and in Texas the death row express lane

 

[Syzygys]

I am always surprised by the victims' families not taking revenge. They just take the loss, cry and think that there will be justice prevailing what doesn't happen most of the time.

Honestly, if the kid kills my family members, as a minimum I would shot his kneecaps, just to put him in wheelchair for the rst of his life and suffer. Not to mention punishments of youth should be advertised and taught in schools, so they would understand that there is consequences. If you are old enough to drink and drive, you are old enough for full punishment...

 

[Read-Only]

I am always surprised by the victims' families not taking revenge. They just take the loss, cry and think that there will be justice prevailing what doesn't happen most of the time.

Honestly, if the kid kills my family members, as a minimum I would shot his kneecaps, just to put him in wheelchair for the rst of his life and suffer. Not to mention punishments of youth should be advertised and taught in schools, so they would understand that there is consequences. If you are old enough to drink and drive, you are old enough for full punishment...

They aren't just "taking the loss" - they've filed a *huge* lawsuit against him.

 

[Syzygys]

They aren't just "taking the loss" - they've filed a *huge* lawsuit against him.

And I guess that is something, although:

1. What if the kid's parents were poor?

2. Does money solve everything?

3. I would still want to inflect wounds, just to be even. After all if the parents pay, why would that effect the kid?

 

[sifreak21]

They aren't just "taking the loss" - they've filed a *huge* lawsuit against him.

That is true but the shouldn't have to do that. The major point here is that our justice system no longer works. This is not a case of proving if he killed and injured someone. They know he did. Yet the courts let him quite literally get away with murder. I'm willing to bat the families would rather have him serving 4 consecutive life sentences or on death row express lane over any amount of money.

I'm 28 married with a 4 year old and another due in may. We make around 60k yearly I have a 100% clean record never had as much as a parking ticket. I'm also mixed. If I was in his shoes I would be in ptision right now serving 4 life sentences out death row and if I wasn't I'd have4 vehicular manslaughter counts and 4 assaults with a deadly weapon at the very least.

Beyond that how much is a llife worth? How much are 4 worth? Should they sue his parents for everything they own? Should they put massive leans on every property vehicle they own. What would any of you do if you were in the victim's families. Shoes?

Since he affluenza should the parents be held liable? The amount of injustice here is sickening

 

[sifreak21]

What do you think should happen to the judge?

 

[joepistole]

What do you think should happen to the judge?

Well here is the thing, how would you fix our judicial system? Money talks loudly in our judicial system as well as our political system. It's one thing to complain, it is another to do.

 

[The Marquis]

The Marquis is little more than a troll in this thread.

Ok, you first.

Definition of a Troll courtesy of Urban Dictionary:
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

So what is it you think I'm guilty of here? Not listening to other's "arguments"? Ad hominem attacks? No substance or relevence? Straw men?

Or perhaps you think it's the last part, when I think it should be painfully obvious that I was the one trying to point out that by addressing only this case, it is in fact everyone else (bar one I've noticed) who is avoiding addressing the essence of the issue?

Have a little think. Take your time. Let me know what caused you to come to the conclusion that I'm trolling.

....If you want to get right down to it, there's PLENTY of inequities in our court systems! So if he/she wants to cry about THAT he/she can go elsewhere with it.

Here I was, thinking I was the one who brought that up in the first place, because at the end of the day this is the essence of the issue. Not inequities in general, but the fact that in this case, mitigating circumstances being allowed as an argument for sentence reduction in a courtroom has come back to bite people on the arse.

In fact, without that being recognised, one could conceivably consider the OP itself as a "troll", and likewise most of the replies to it.
Seems the emotive responses are pretty much the order of the day as far as this thread goes, and apparently you think a troll is one who posts in the expectation of exactly that type of response while ignoring other motivations.

I mean if you think this thread should only be a bunch of people getting on their high horses, falling in with a mob mentality and advocating the lynching of some rich folks, then by all means make that clear and I'll go quietly away. Personally, I expect better, although I have long ago come to the conclusion I'm to be perpetually disappointed.

 

[The Marquis]

One could argue that, if you want to be a serial killer, you don't need a gun. You need a car. So much for anti-gun legislation.

Nope. 2011 was the first year in which more Americans were killed by guns than by cars.

The difference being, Fraggle, that cars aren't generally used as murder weapons.
If they were, I'm betting that little statistic would be significantly altered. I could use a car to do more damage in one minute than gun, if I were that way inclined.

 

[Bells]

The difference being, Fraggle, that cars aren't generally used as murder weapons.
If they were, I'm betting that little statistic would be significantly altered. I could use a car to do more damage in one minute than gun, if I were that way inclined.

Depends on the gun.

 

[The Marquis]

Now Bells... this one might take a while:

Is it?
Mitigating circumstances usually apply in cases of abuse or illness for example. Being drunk and slamming your car into others and blaming it on being too rich to know better does not cut it, nor should it ever cut it.

Where did you get that from? If I had the inclination, I could dig out plenty of cases where a "poor me" story from a defendant's childhood has been used to get them off the hook. Mitigating circumstances has been a valid legal defence from all walks of life for quite some time now. Which I have already said.
The difference being that you choose to accept some, and decry others as being "pop-psychology". Such as, as it appears, "abuse" (presumably historical?) being a legitimate excuse.
Says who? A man can't distinguish being right and wrong in abuse cases because he was abused himself?
Bullshit. That's pop-psychology right there. And yet it remains acceptable, and you apparently have no objection.
You said, and I quote:

Which is the entire problem in this case. The families of those who lost loved ones in that crash had said that had he been punished or given a jail sentence, had the judge acted responsibly and not allowed his affluenza defense to stand, then they probably would not have sued. Since the court used his family's money as a defense, then it stands to reason to go after said money.

No. It does not "stand to reason" at all. If the parents had been poor, and failed to teach their kid right from wrong, would you still be advocating they be sued? Along with, as it happens, the company that owned the truck? What the hell has the company that owns the truck got to do with it? Are they a legitimate target simply because they have money?

Tell me something, Bells. If your kids, assuming you have any, were to rob a bank, would you consider it "justice" that if some lawyer got them off saying you hadn't brought them up properly, the bank decided to go after you on the strength of that defence? Still think you'd be all gung-ho about it then?

If you have an issue with the ruling, or the defence used to gain it, then your legal recourse should be to the justice system itself.
Advocating suing the parents and the company that owned the truck is absolutely despicable. Yet advocate that you did, with the link entitled "And so they should" and that is why my initial reply was to you.

Good luck with that.

Well, you aren't the only one here unable to detect a facetious comment, apparently.

Different thread and different circumstances. And they should have been found guilty. It was clear fraud. So why are you so obsessed about the two maids and offended their case is not being discussed in this thread?

I'm not. I'm annoyed that you seem to think, along with others, that this case in itself is worthy of discussing while ignoring the deeper issue. Like I said to Read-Only, if you consider this thread to be a lynching and all those who want to cane you for it should go away, then simply say so. Don't expect me to respect your mental capabilities, though.

Yes, it says I don't read entertainment pages.

At the moment, I am only trying to figure out why you demand we read the entertainment pages.

Nice attempt at deflection, Bells, but the Nigella Lawson case has been front page for a couple of weeks on the same news site you got your links from. Front page. Not in the "entertainment pages".
Personally, I had to do some googling to find out who Saatchi and Lawson actually were. But I read it.

I'm not comparing the two cases, other than in pointing out that there was another case recently in which much the same verdict came down, only this time as an argument used to get two poor people off who defrauded the rich. Hence the real issue at hand is mitigating circumstances being used to get people off jail time, and that suing rich folks is not the answer, only a knee-jerk reaction from people who are blissfully unaware of, or don't care about, the actual problem. But you choose not to have to deal with it, and instead tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about and the victims should go after the family.
Got a nice big white robe and headdress to go along with that mindset?

 

[The Marquis]

And finally, for tonight:

Is/does what you "would have thought" more important than/take priority over what you actually think, or Post?

I'm not entirely certain what it is you're insinuating. I post exactly what I think... most of the time. This is why I often get into trouble. In fact, you can often tell when I'm being disingenuous - when I come across as polite and friendly. Although I wouldn't take that as a maxim either.

"I would have thought" is an expression used commonly to express a sarcastic view of a response which conveys a misunderstanding of what was originally said. It's a very English expression, or is as far as I'm aware. My thoughts and expression follow a more English style than American. I'm aware that this is an American forum, and that there are times when an expression used can be read by Americans devoid of cultural context, but I don't care to change my literary style to suit you.

In other words, TDMOE, I posted exactly what I meant to, and that response to you was in fact a form of sarcasm.

Oh, The Marquis, you are being quite "obvious" in regards to what you "hink(sic)".

TDMOE, I have better diction and spelling capability when completely and utterly fall down drunk than 70% of posters here do while sober. You're going to have to better than that if you want to come at me with a typo. Tonight, I am completely sober. When I don't point it out either way, there are precious few who can tell the difference.

I do not "wish" to "blame the Bloody Marys". Do you "wish" to "blame the Bloody Marys", The Marquis?
If so, whom do you "wish" to "blame" for being responsible for The Marquis imbibing "the Bloody Marys, tonight"?

One of the better things one can do in life is develop the capability to laugh at oneself.
I do it a lot. In public, on occasion, just like that you've quoted. I'm giving you a reason to laugh at me. I also enjoy watching how many people think it's a reason I should be dismissed. People have a habit of accepting any circumstance or condition they can use to be able to avoid really thinking about an opposing argument. I like to give them one, to see if they're actually thinking, or looking for excuses not to.
I have my little box of research tools, most of which are worn from long use.

The Marquis, it tells me that you seem to find that "Saatchi having half a million pounds stolen from him", is somehow as bad or worse or more important than a person killing 4 people, and injuring another 11 people.

The comparison wasn't on the case itself, but used for the purposes of pointing out that lawyers will use whatever defence they can for their clients, and that it works both for rich and poor.
No, I do not think that at all, and never once indicated that I did. It was a response to Bells final statement in her first post, which was, and I quote:

The law is not written with the explicit protection of the wealthy.

I have taken great pains to point out that this is not the case at all, but it seems there are too many here who want to make it the thrust of their arguments and refuse to acknowledge their own little prejudices.

If you'd like an example of a classic misdirection, and, when you get right down to it, an emotive judgement with little basis in fact being presented as an argument, Bells has presented the above one to you.

The Marquis, your "If I'd seen...", "I'd probably have..." or "perhaps..." only seem to make your position more obvious.

Well and good. I would hope so; that's why I used those words.
With regard to that statement, I view the prejudice against the rich so very apparent on this forum with the same distaste I do racism. While the two are somewhat disparate in object, the fact is that both rely upon broadly painted, generic and often incorrect assumptions.

Prejudice, it seems, is only accepted as such when the "moral" majority wish to, and that acceptance generally occurs when that being viewed as prejudice no longer coincides with their own views.

That's why this case was chosen to be worthy of comment on this forum, and not the Lawson one. Both are examples of injustice. Only one deserves comment.
I find it deplorable that such an obvious prejudice is not recognised as such, and when I point it out, I am howled down and the other case dismissed summarily as being of little importance. Bells, for example, believes it would be worthy of inclusion only in the society pages.

It has little do with the details behind each case. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in why the base problems aren't being addressed.

A part of the fun in coming here is that there are so many who believe they come here for "intellectual discussion" or "enlightenment", when in fact all they desire is to find support for their own petty thoughts and prejudices - or perhaps just to find anyone who will listen.
"Chattering monkeys", someone said to me recently (paraphrased). I like that.

The Marquis, I am simply trying to respond to your queries directed towards me.
The Marquis, as I stated prior in this Post, I find your position obvious. You have made your position very clear.

I thought I had. You are demonstrating that I had not... at least not to you. Or to Bells.
Perhaps, now, you can see the context behind "I would have thought".

 

[Bells]

Now Bells... this one might take a while:


Where did you get that from? If I had the inclination, I could dig out plenty of cases where a "poor me" story from a defendant's childhood has been used to get them off the hook. Mitigating circumstances has been a valid legal defence from all walks of life for quite some time now. Which I have already said.

You mean cases where the defendant is a victim of abuse.. Gee, isn't that what I said before?

The difference being that you choose to accept some, and decry others as being "pop-psychology". Such as, as it appears, "abuse" (presumably historical?) being a legitimate excuse.

Is that what I said?

Or what you assume?

Says who? A man can't distinguish being right and wrong in abuse cases because he was abused himself?

Okay?

Bullshit. That's pop-psychology right there. And yet it remains acceptable, and you apparently have no objection.

Sorry, but I am trying to figure out what this has to do with this case. Was he abused? Can one's wealth be abusive?

You said, and I quote:


No. It does not "stand to reason" at all. If the parents had been poor, and failed to teach their kid right from wrong, would you still be advocating they be sued? Along with, as it happens, the company that owned the truck? What the hell has the company that owns the truck got to do with it? Are they a legitimate target simply because they have money?

The judge allowed the kids wealth to become a reason to not send him to jail. In fact, he was so insistent that he also made sure that part of the boy's punishment was to go to an uber expensive counseling sessions that would cost them over $450,000. He clearly held that it was because of the boy's wealth, that it was the reason he never learned right from wrong. Would I advocate victims sue if the courts allow anyone to get off going to jail for stupid reasons like this? Hell yes.

Tell me something, Bells. If your kids, assuming you have any, were to rob a bank, would you consider it "justice" that if some lawyer got them off saying you hadn't brought them up properly, the bank decided to go after you on the strength of that defence? Still think you'd be all gung-ho about it then?

My kids would never get a lawyer that would get them off.

Nor would my kids ever rob a bank. I guess that is what you don't get. I would never allow my kids to get off something like that. Actions have consequences and if they do something wrong, then they need to learn the consequences.

If you have an issue with the ruling, or the defence used to gain it, then your legal recourse should be to the justice system itself.
Advocating suing the parents and the company that owned the truck is absolutely despicable. Yet advocate that you did, with the link entitled "And so they should" and that is why my initial reply was to you.

What do you think suing is? It is using the justice system. Yes, how despicable that the families of the victims try to get some justice through the justice system after a judge allowed someone to get off going to jail for numerous crimes because he is too rich. The horror.

I'm not. I'm annoyed that you seem to think, along with others, that this case in itself is worthy of discussing while ignoring the deeper issue. Like I said to Read-Only, if you consider this thread to be a lynching and all those who want to cane you for it should go away, then simply say so. Don't expect me to respect your mental capabilities, though.

The deeper issue is a legal system that can be easily bought and sold when you consider that many judges are elected to their seats. Unlike in the UK.

Nice attempt at deflection, Bells, but the Nigella Lawson case has been front page for a couple of weeks on the same news site you got your links from. Front page. Not in the "entertainment pages".
Personally, I had to do some googling to find out who Saatchi and Lawson actually were. But I read it.

The two cases are chalk and cheese. In one case, two people were found not guilty of fraud. In other case, one was found guilty of killing and injuring other people after stealing booze and driving drunk, and was not sent to prison because he is too rich to go to prison because apparently his wealth meant he could not know the difference between right and wrong. Can you tell the difference between the two cases?

I'm not comparing the two cases, other than in pointing out that there was another case recently in which much the same verdict came down, only this time as an argument used to get two poor people off who defrauded the rich. Hence the real issue at hand is mitigating circumstances being used to get people off jail time, and that suing rich folks is not the answer, only a knee-jerk reaction from people who are blissfully unaware of, or don't care about, the actual problem. But you choose not to have to deal with it, and instead tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about and the victims should go after the family.
Got a nice big white robe and headdress to go along with that mindset?

It was not the same verdict at all.

But they claimed Nigella Lawson was "off her head" on drugs including cocaine, cannabis and prescription drugs she couldn’t recall authorising the women to spend on themselves on the cards.

It was also claimed, and the seven man five woman jury presumably accepted, Lawson turned a blind eye to the spending by the women as a form of compensation for them not telling anybody about her "dirty secret" of drug use. Specifically she did not want her husband Saatchi to know.​

There was also evidence from a 3rd party that they allowed the assistants to purchase what they wanted with the cards.

Now compare the jury finding the two of them not guilty to a judge saying a kid didn't have to go to jail after he was found guilty of killing and injuring people because he was rich, and you might just see how the two cases are vastly different.

 

[The Marquis]

If I had the inclination, I could dig out plenty of cases where a "poor me" story from a defendant's childhood has been used to get them off the hook. Mitigating circumstances has been a valid legal defence from all walks of life for quite some time now. Which I have already said.

You mean cases where the defendant is a victim of abuse.. Gee, isn't that what I said before?

Yes, it is. Not quite what I said though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. But, if you're going to insist, Let's make the presumption that you are quite correct and that all instances of mitigating circumstances are raised in abuse cases. I would tend to disagree, but the point is moot either way and doesn't change the argument.

The fact is that psychology plays a part in many cases heard in court. My point was that, psychology not being a metric science, you get to choose which "mitigating circumstances" you choose to accept and which you do not. Or, to be more accurate with regard to the words you've written in this thread, which you choose to ignore and which you do not.
I could mention that with regard to the continued insistence of the justice system in using that kind of defence, the two amount to much the same thing, but I'm becoming increasingly aware that you're not really amenable to the study of minutiae.

Sorry, but I am trying to figure out what this has to do with this case. Was he abused? Can one's wealth be abusive?

Although, here we have some sort of proof that it isn't a matter of you ignoring the minutiae, it's more one of you not even being aware of them.
I'm actually becoming less surprised with every word that you post, that you can't see what it has to do with it.

The judge allowed the kids wealth to become a reason to not send him to jail. In fact, he was so insistent that he also made sure that part of the boy's punishment was to go to an uber expensive counseling sessions that would cost them over $450,000. He clearly held that it was because of the boy's wealth, that it was the reason he never learned right from wrong. Would I advocate victims sue if the courts allow anyone to get off going to jail for stupid reasons like this? Hell yes.

Mmmm. I'm observing how you keep coming back to the word "wealth", or "Rich" when describing this. The term used, Bells, was "Affluenza", a condition a psychologist used in court as a defence.
Thing is, you're oversimplifying the decision, you wriggly little thing, you. I'm not sure yet whether that's intentional on your part or not. By saying the kid was let off "because of his wealth" is just a little silly.


You're using the word "wealth" and "money" rather a lot, in this thread.
I can smell something...

Tell me something, Bells. If your kids, assuming you have any, were to rob a bank, would you consider it "justice" that if some lawyer got them off saying you hadn't brought them up properly, the bank decided to go after you on the strength of that defence? Still think you'd be all gung-ho about it then?

My kids would never get a lawyer that would get them off.

Oh, are we playing dodge ball now? What's the matter, Bells, you don't like the question?

And as to your.. reply... what is that odour?

If you have an issue with the ruling, or the defence used to gain it, then your legal recourse should be to the justice system itself.
Advocating suing the parents and the company that owned the truck is absolutely despicable. Yet advocate that you did, with the link entitled "And so they should" and that is why my initial reply was to you.

What do you think suing is? It is using the justice system. Yes, how despicable that the families of the victims try to get some justice through the justice system after a judge allowed someone to get off going to jail for numerous crimes because he is too rich. The horror.

I'll give you a bit of leeway on this one because I left out part of my reply, that being "...should be to challenge the justice system itself.
But unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the fact that you're still wriggling. My objection was not noted to be against the victims' families suing per se, but rather to their targets.
Something you're completely ignoring here.

Your contention is that suing the parents, and even the trucking company who owned the vehicle is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. Mine is that that is despicable.

In fact, I wonder if you're even aware that by doing so, you're giving validity to both the defence itself, and the judges decision. The only legal grounding upon which you could mount a civil case against the parents would be to do so under the assumption that "affluenza" is real, that the kid wasn't responsible, and that the parents were.
Which makes the decision of the judge correct.

The deeper issue is a legal system that can be easily bought and sold when you consider that many judges are elected to their seats. Unlike in the UK.

Oh, I see. Now you're trying to find a "deeper issue" which is more to your taste. Are you implying the judge was bought? Just say it, Bells. For the record. Although to do so would detract even more from any civil case alleging parental responsibility.

That niggling odour.

The two cases are chalk and cheese. In one case, two people were found not guilty of fraud. In other case, one was found guilty of killing and injuring other people after stealing booze and driving drunk, and was not sent to prison because he is too rich to go to prison because apparently his wealth meant he could not know the difference between right and wrong. Can you tell the difference between the two cases?

How many times do I need say it, Bells? 5? 10? The details behind each case aren't important.

It was not the same verdict at all.

Both verdicts were actually not guilty, Bells. So yes, they are the same.

But they claimed Nigella Lawson was "off her head" on drugs including cocaine, cannabis and prescription drugs she couldn�t recall authorising the women to spend on themselves on the cards.

It was also claimed, and the seven man five woman jury presumably accepted, Lawson turned a blind eye to the spending by the women as a form of compensation for them not telling anybody about her "dirty secret" of drug use. Specifically she did not want her husband Saatchi to know.​

And here, all you're doing is spouting hearsay evidence that the UK jury "presumably accepted".
I do like these little turns of phrase in news articles. I'm guessing the author was more than a little surprised as well.

There was also evidence from a 3rd party that they allowed the assistants to purchase what they wanted with the cards.

I actually did read that article you linked. This is a part of the problem of a jury consisting of "12 of your peers". My guess is that the jury in that case were 12 little Bells.
There's a reason some opt to face a judge directly rather than a jury. Those unwashed masses do tend to be easily swayed, particularly when its a wealthy guy up in the dock. Saatchi has just found that out, presumably to his displeasure.

Personally, I could tear that article apart in less than five minutes. I read through it once, then once more to find all the little bits that should have been challenged by any respectable lawyer - although, it must be said that juries are and have always been susceptible to the kind of prejudice you're displaying so adequately here.

Now compare the jury finding the two of them not guilty to a judge saying a kid didn't have to go to jail after he was found guilty of killing and injuring people because he was rich, and you might just see how the two cases are vastly different.

Again, Bells, the details of the cases themselves are not the basis of comparison.

Guilty people got off in both cases due to some fairly clever lawyering. In both cases, the circumstances surrounding the events at hand or which led up to them were used as a defence. In both cases, the perpetrators were let off. In fact, the two PA's, the poor folks, got off completely.
So don't sit there and try to make this all about "rich people". It's about the justice system itself, and how clever lawyers are using your bleeding hearts against you.

And there's that odour.
It's your hatred. Seeps through, like the way I smell the next day after I've had a skinful of bourbon the night before.
Disguise it all you like, the smell is there.
Sometimes people know what it is, and sometimes they don't.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor would my kids ever rob a bank. I guess that is what you don't get. I would never allow my kids to get off something like that. Actions have consequences and if they do something wrong, then they need to learn the consequences.

I've left this until last, because your reply really had nothing to do with anything.
There's nothing about it I need to "get", Bells. You're telling me a story, and asking me to accept it at face value. Fact is, I have no idea who you are, nor who your kids are. So I have absolutely no idea what you expect to gain here by posting that.

I will relate a little story of my own, here.
I went to a party once, one where the kids all played outside, the mums chatted away indoors and the hubbies were outside drinking. Typical Aussie backyard affair, really. One of the boys was very aggressive. He pushed other kids over, hit them, took whatever they were playing with.
When this was brought to the attention of the mother, she merely said "Not my boy. It's not in his nature". More or less her exact words. She dismissed the whole thing.

I wonder if Anton Breviks mother ever thought he'd go on a shooting rampage.