Spoiled rich white kid kills 4 drunk driving gets no jail time

[TheGardener]

I served on a jury where a young female was accused of DUI. The trial took place 18 months after she was cited. That's too long. And that's why she got off.

After the testimony and arguments were completed, the judge told the jurors that she was deciding the verdict, which was not guilty. The reason she explained to us is that the testifying officer was not the one who stopped the car. There were campus police who did, and they detained her until the city police took over. The legal issue was that the campus police were not there to testify. The law states that there must be proof that the accused was actually the driver, and the city police could not testify that she was the driver.

Without the direct testimony of the campus police, the judge threw out the charges. I got out of having to come back the next day to finish the trial, and the judge got to get out on time to go drinking with her buddies. Hopefully there was a designated driver in her case.

 

[waggy]

I served on a jury where a young female was accused of DUI. The trial took place 18 months after she was cited. That's too long. And that's why she got off.

After the testimony and arguments were completed, the judge told the jurors that she was deciding the verdict, which was not guilty. The reason she explained to us is that the testifying officer was not the one who stopped the car. There were campus police who did, and they detained her until the city police took over. The legal issue was that the campus police were not there to testify. The law states that there must be proof that the accused was actually the driver, and the city police could not testify that she was the driver.

Without the direct testimony of the campus police, the judge threw out the charges. I got out of having to come back the next day to finish the trial, and the judge got to get out on time to go drinking with her buddies. Hopefully there was a designated driver in her case.

ah. i don't see anything wrong with that. seems right and fair.

 

[zinfamous]

Has Bruce Jenner suffered any consequence for killing someone while texting?

OMG TRANS PRIVILEGE!!!!

well, to be fair, his process was still baking when all that went down, so I'm not sure what kind of privilege that should be.

 

[jackstar7]

I see a lot of class warfare in this thread from all the usual 'warriors for wealth'. Funny how they flip-flop.

 

[DrDoug]

I thought this quote was interesting:

"He's allowed due process at every level," Tarrant County sheriff's spokesman Terry Grisham told the Dallas Morning News. "[Cases] are not prosecuted or revoked or modified based on hearsay or based on a grainy video that we can't identify someone in."

I wonder if the cop is already making excuses for the idiot because IMO this sentence really isn't necessary. It almost sounds like this is his assessment of the video. Why not a more neutral statement that 'He's allowed due process at every level. This is being investigated and will be turned over to the proper authorities if it is determined that he may have violated the terms of his release'?

It just seems like an odd line in his statement.

 

[shortylickens]

He fucked up ON probation, so his sentence is...... more probation?


Yeah, he's definitely buying his way out of justice. Fuckwad.

 

[Vaux]

Boys behave. We all know money buys better lawyers that get easier sentences, we also all know on average black guys get harsher sentences for same/similar crimes.

Who, on average, can afford better lawyers in these same/similar crimes you are comparing?

 

[Vaux]

It's more about wealth than color.

OJ says hell yeah it is!

 

[Darwin333]

The Couch family will tie up the 5 law suits in civil court for years, then eventually pay out a few million that they can easily afford (assuming insurance doesn't cover any of it.)

Company truck so they have at least a million in liability insurance. If the company is of any decent size they probably have an additional umbrella policy. We have a $10M umbrella policy almost purely in case one of our guys gets into a bad accident in a company vehicle. Not that we let drunk 15 year olds drive or anything but no matter whose fault an accident is, if it involves a company vehicle you are getting sued.

As far as the jail thing, serious protip to some of you guys:

Race wasn't the factor

Say it with me now, race was not the factor.

Money was what kept his pasty white ass out of jail. He could have been black as night and gotten the same outcome if his parents had the same amount of money (and were willing to spend it obviously). Someone else brought up OJ, we all know that if OJ was a janitor or some shit that fucker would have been found guilty as hell. The only color that really matters is green.

 

[MongGrel]

$$$$ talks of course, always.

 

[Darwin333]

I can't wait for the civil suit.

Which will be against the company and not the family, probably better for the family doing the suing (much larger insurance policy) but if they were even remotely smart with their assets the family will probably be just fine.

 

[Darwin333]

Not likely.

There are multiple insurance policies that could be in play. The families personal auto liability(probably $500k per incident), the families umbrella insurance(probably $3-5million, and the company's General Liability Insurance(probably around $10million)).

You can only stall a trial for so long. The insurance companies aren't going to dick around because this is an open and shut case, and if it went to trial, who knows what a jury will come back with. Thats why the will settle and not try to prolong it for more than a year or two. The monkey wrench in this situation is the company's General Liability Insurance. The carrier might want to go to court to try and get off the hook because they have the most to lose. But they aren't likely to get off, so they too may want to settle.

The family of those who died are unlikely to get that much, probably no more than $1-2million per person. Just depends, some could be less than $1million.

The expensive settlements will be for the two survivors. They have lost all future wages and each have millions in life long medical expenses, on top of the already incurred medical expenses. Each of their settlements could easily be in the $5-10million range.

The companies insurance company will settle for whatever max they have and the company (original not the insurance company) will hope like hell that it is enough. No way in hell are they going to spend the money taking this to trial. Drunk kid in a company vehicle kills 4 people, nope, they will spend more money on attorneys trying to find a loophole in the policy than actually fighting the case.

And the families personal insurance won't kick in since he was in a company truck. For corporate insurance the minimum is usually $1M in liability, not sure if its per incident or per person. I'll have to read our policy. Hopefully they do have an umbrella but a ton of companies, especially small business, don't think that far ahead.

 

[master_shake_]

OJ says hell yeah it is!

99 problems...

 

[Darwin333]

Depends how the Judge wrote the order. Some drinking offenders are essentially ordered to stay away from parties with alcohol. So it would be OK for him to visit my home where there is liquor in the fridge & cabinets but not OK to visit my home when there are a bunch of people sitting around drinking the liquor.

Naw, the high priced lawyer who knows the judge will get him off of any sort of minor violation of his probation without even a slap on the wrist. A mediocre violation might buy himself some more probation but so long as they still have money the kids golden.

Lesson of the day people: A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.

 

[Darwin333]

I served on a jury where a young female was accused of DUI. The trial took place 18 months after she was cited. That's too long. And that's why she got off.

After the testimony and arguments were completed, the judge told the jurors that she was deciding the verdict, which was not guilty. The reason she explained to us is that the testifying officer was not the one who stopped the car. There were campus police who did, and they detained her until the city police took over. The legal issue was that the campus police were not there to testify. The law states that there must be proof that the accused was actually the driver, and the city police could not testify that she was the driver.

Without the direct testimony of the campus police, the judge threw out the charges. I got out of having to come back the next day to finish the trial, and the judge got to get out on time to go drinking with her buddies. Hopefully there was a designated driver in her case.

Yeah, that sucks. Especially to be a juror during all of that bullshit but it is kinda the 6th amendment and all. This case doesn't have any constitutional issues, just plain old US dollars.

 

[BoberFett]

OJ says hell yeah it is!

Black privilege!

 

[Craig234]

I served on a jury where a young female was accused of DUI. The trial took place 18 months after she was cited. That's too long. And that's why she got off.

After the testimony and arguments were completed, the judge told the jurors that she was deciding the verdict, which was not guilty. The reason she explained to us is that the testifying officer was not the one who stopped the car. There were campus police who did, and they detained her until the city police took over. The legal issue was that the campus police were not there to testify. The law states that there must be proof that the accused was actually the driver, and the city police could not testify that she was the driver.

Without the direct testimony of the campus police, the judge threw out the charges. I got out of having to come back the next day to finish the trial, and the judge got to get out on time to go drinking with her buddies. Hopefully there was a designated driver in her case.

Why weren't they there? I'd call the police office, maybe tell a reporter.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm wondering who took the video is this another example of young people screwing each other or did the other guy hate this dude?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

that little fucker needs to be dragged in front of the judge and slammed hard. fuck him.

The original judge needs to be dragged in front of a different judge and slammed hard for buying into that affluenza bullshit.

 

[Linux23]

If you believe OJ got off just because he was rich then I got a bridge to sell you.

 

[shortylickens]

OJ was tried by a jury of his peers and found innocent.

Affluenza boy admitted to what he did and got a slap on the wrist. Then he broke the rules of his punishment and got another wrist slap.

These are two different situations.

 

[buckshot24]

OJ was tried by a jury of his peers and found innocent.

No he wasn't. Not guilty is way different than innocent.

 

[jackstar7]

Buckshot's America:

You are not guilty until proven guilty.

No one is innocent.

 

[shortylickens]

No he wasn't. Not guilty is way different than innocent.

Post removed

No.

admin allisolm


Please.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not guilty is way different than innocent.

Funny, I could have sworn there were more than a few in this forum that said the same exact thing when George Zimmerman was found not guilty.