Why do you want him to rot in prison for 25 years, just to punish him? You already said it's not about him learning his lesson.
What a terribly illogical mindset to have. How would you feel if the 16 year old boy was your son or brother? Actually, it wouldn't matter, because you would be the furthest thing from impartial.
fuck this guy. do the crime, do the time, son. just because his rich cracka family is influential in the community and can pay off crooked docs doesn't mean he should get off scott free. fuck that. dude needs to feel the pain.
These posts show that you guys know he didn't intentionally kill anyone. He should be punished for underage drinking and driving. The deaths were still an accident.
They weren't an accident. He drove drunk. The deaths and the driving drunk are connected. Cause and effect. He got drunk, he get behind the wheel, he killed those people. Cause and effect. If he loaded a gun and fired 30 rounds into 30 different directions just for the fuck of it, but 4 of those rounds hit and killed 4 people, would you call that an accident? He didn't mean to shoot those people. It was an accident, right? He didn't know that he would shoot anyone when he fired in a bunch of random directions, right?
I'm illogical because I think killing four people while drinking and driving deserves a harsher punishment than probation? Fuck you.
How so? When you drive drunk, you are taking other people's lives into your hands. A car can be one of the most lethal weapons in society. You are operating that weapon while impaired. Driving on the road, while drunk, is essentially like firing a gun and hoping not to hit anyone. I could fire my handgun 15 times and not hit anyone. If I'm messing around with my gun and it goes off, the bullet goes through three walls and kill a neighbor, is it negligence? Would you call it murder? The point is, if I'm being negligent and I kill someone, it is not an accident. Negligence removes that word from the equation. He drove drunk, he was criminally negligent, and he killed four people.
A 16 yr old who steals beer, drinks to the level of .24, drives with people in the back of his pickup and plows into 4 pedestrians at a high rate of speed is not someone I would trust being free in my community to make decisions that could impact me and my loved ones. I think the judge's decision is disrespectful to both the victims and the community.
Pretty much spot on. And TLongII no offense, but what the fuck man? If the guy was TWO (and that's if he just turned 16) freaking years older he's in jail plain and simple. He should be in jail now. 16 years old is more than mature enough to know the consequences from driving loaded.
I disagree. Sixteen is a kid. He was driving to get from point A to point B. He made a terrible mistake, but he shouldn't go to prison.
This judge better be damn sure this "kid" doesn't do it again . . . because if he goes out, drinks and kills someone else, that judge should be fired or recalled or whatever. And how the judge will live with himself will be his problem. Last year 16,894 people were convicted of driving under the influence in the state; 3,716, or about one quarter of them, were repeat offenders, according to statistics from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In Tennessee, thousands of convicted DUI offenders get right back out on the road. They make up aliases to hide their records. They often spend little time behind bars. Sometimes they flee to avoid prosecution. Or, they simply get back in the car, even when the courts strip away their driving privileges. They cause accidents. They kill people. * * * The probability of DUI recidivism predicted by a simple model using BAC, prior 2-year total convictions, and offender level could be used by presentence investigators, judges, or in administrative settings to determine appropriate sanctions, treatment program assignment, or other remedial measures. The findings support the notion that first offenders with high BAC levels and/or several prior 2-year total convictions are at as high a risk of recidivating as repeat offenders
When you say a "kid," I think of someone who's five or six years old. Sixteen is a young adult. They're old enough to drive and they're old enough to know better.
Oh, he's 16, just a poor baby boy, only give him probation. But if he were 2 years older, then he's magically an adult that deserves to be held accountable for his actions. That's bullshit.
That's where I come down--if you're old enough to drive, then you're old enough to be held accountable for your actions while driving. Or stated another way, if 16-year-olds are too young to suffer consequences for crimes committed while driving, then they shouldn't be granted licenses at all.
Roger fucking that. There should be no way in hell a 16 year old can get a license and then get the proverbial "get out of jail free" card (when he kills people) because hes not considered a legal "adult" yet. This whole thing is bullshit and saying "it's okay, because he's a kid" is ignorant at best, very damn dangerous at worst.
