• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Kid has DWI, kills 4 pedestrians, says he suffers from "affluenza"...gets probation

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Oh8ch said:
There I would differ. While not exclusive, I do believe that "liberal" is an accurate term to apply to a thought process that is liberal in its interpretation of what is an appropriate way to deal with a situation like this. My target for the term is the judge. The law is pretty clear that when you get drunk and kill someone you out to pay severely. IMO he was being incredibly liberal in judging how accountable the youth was for his actions - which essentially is not at all.
Click to expand...
Being 16 saved his ass. The kid is clearly fucked up, probably due to be ignored and "given" things to keep him quiet rather than being raised properly. He may be a naturally born sociopath too, who knows. For his sake lets hope this rehab center tears him done and builds him back up instead of giving him a two year vacation until he turns 18. Once he's free if he fucks up again he'll likely be on his own. I do agree that he should have been punished instead of turned into a victim but it is what it is. He's been given a new lease on life, let's see what he does with. You know the spotlight will be on him when he gets out.
 
Upvote 0
DubCoffman62 said:
Being 16 saved his ass. The kid is clearly fucked up, probably due to be ignored and "given" things to keep him quiet rather than being raised properly. He may be a naturally born sociopath too, who knows. For his sake lets hope this rehab center tears him done and builds him back up instead of giving him a two year vacation until he turns 18. Once he's free if he fucks up again he'll likely be on his own. I do agree that he should have been punished instead of turned into a victim but it is what it is. He's been given a new lease on life, let's see what he does with. You know the spotlight will be on him when he gets out.
Click to expand...
If he wasn't a naturally born one...he has been made one now.
 
Upvote 0
Having endured a frustrating experience as jury foreman on a vehicular homicide trial I am no longer surprised by the stupidity of juries. Even a half-assed attorney can blow smoke up the backsides of 75% of jurors.

Seeing a judge fall for such tripe helps me understand some of the decisions rendered by our courts of appeal and, dare I say it, the SCOTUS. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
I couldn't really care less, to be honest. The purpose of punishment in a situation like this isn't to give the families of the victims what they want - for, I'm sure, if they could have anything, they'd want their loved ones back. And that just ain't happening. No sentence was going to bring them back. The purpose is to prevent the next tragedy. This sentence does not accomplish sufficient deterrence to the general public and other entitled youths at large. That's where the outrage should be.

As far as the individual young man is concerned, it's not for me to say what he "deserves." I can tell you that I, personally, would not be able to live with myself if I had done such a thing. I would go all Will Smith "7 Pounds" on myself.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeneye said:
Last I checked; liberal was either defined as political ideology and/or an excess/generous amount of something be it physical or concept.
Click to expand...

OH pretty clearly defined his use of the "term" here:

Oh8ch said:
There I would differ. While not exclusive, I do believe that "liberal" is an accurate term to apply to a thought process that is liberal in its interpretation of what is an appropriate way to deal with a situation like this. My target for the term is the judge. The law is pretty clear that when you get drunk and kill someone you out to pay severely. IMO he was being incredibly liberal in judging how accountable the youth was for his actions - which essentially is not at all.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, there are a dozen-plus varitions of the definition of the term, including "not strict or rigorous; free; not literal".
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck said:
OH pretty clearly defined his use of the "term" here:


Last I checked, there are a dozen-plus varitions of the definition of the term, including "not strict or rigorous; free; not literal".
Click to expand...

Does it REALLY matter? It's not the definition of the term that's at issue. It's the motivation behind using such a term in the context of this ridiculous sentence - as if somehow "liberals" (in the common parlance of our times) would agree with the sentence and, therefore, liberals suck.
 
Upvote 0
OH10 said:
Does it REALLY matter? It's not the definition of the term that's at issue. It's the motivation behind using such a term in the context of this ridiculous sentence - as if somehow "liberals" (in the common parlance of our times) would agree with the sentence and, therefore, liberals suck.
Click to expand...

Just seems some people are getting overly defensive about a term being used more broadly than simple politics here. Besides, the originator of the term "affluenza" did use it as a liberal critique of consumerism and claims it is a result of "selfish capitalism" and income inequality. And the preference for rehabilitation over punishment is generally a more liberal one.

I just don't understand the shock that the discussion might turn slightly political, as obviously this is all about law and culture: politics is right there where they intersect.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OH10 said:
Does it REALLY matter? It's not the definition of the term that's at issue. It's the motivation behind using such a term in the context of this ridiculous sentence - as if somehow "liberals" (in the common parlance of our times) would agree with the sentence and, therefore, liberals suck.
Click to expand...
Not remotely my intention. And I agree with the above that civil discourse is becoming more difficult because of knee jerk reactions on both sides to terms such as "liberal" and "conservative". (I have a sister in law who rarely speaks to me because I once described myself as a conservative (little "c") in a particular context. She immediately applied that label (big "C") and everything that it implies - in her mind - to who I was.

We don't all fit into two non-overlapping circles on a Venn Diagram.



All that said, we all know the judge in the Winston case contributed heavily to Obama.

(God wouldn't have given me a ladle if he didn't want me stirring the pot.)

(And you libs are welcome to read the above as lower case "g" if you prefer.)

(Maybe my sister in law isn't the one with a problem.)
 
Upvote 0
One, in my opinion must be liberal in order to be a good conservative. At times revolutionary.

All that said, before I can ascribe any sort of ideology to this decision, I'd have to understand better, the other alternatives. I'm not sure what the rehabilitation facility is really all about, nor do I understand what the alternatives in Texas are - that apparently others didn't get into. Finally, its sort of being treated (reaction-wise) as though the kid were acquitted based on this "affluenza" - and clearly that's not the case.
 
Upvote 0
AKAK said:
One, in my opinion must be liberal in order to be a good conservative. At times revolutionary.

All that said, before I can ascribe any sort of ideology to this decision, I'd have to understand better, the other alternatives. I'm not sure what the rehabilitation facility is really all about, nor do I understand what the alternatives in Texas are - that apparently others didn't get into. Finally, its sort of being treated (reaction-wise) as though the kid were acquitted based on this "affluenza" - and clearly that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Probation for killing 4 people in a drunken stupor? I'd say it's pretty close.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top