2 teens racing on gessner kill a mother and two children. jail time or probation?

I was sympathetic to the offenders when they were described as teens, but then I read they're 18 and 19. They're men. At least, they are until they get to the pen, anyway.

 

Hell no. So they can do something stupid to other service members? Give them a salary for the next 5 years as punishment? We don't want these turds. There is a reason the military is a VOLUNTARY service.

 

So you agree with one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard in my life?

I knew racing cars in anywhere other than a racing track is extremely dangerous and should not be done when I was 12 years old. I know my friends back then did too.

Actually I would have some sympathy for them if they were drunk because in that case I can pass some of the blame onto the one who sold/provided them with alcohol.

 

[rquoter]
Then why let teenagers drive? I understand there are different laws for different ages, etc, etc (driving = 16, voting/smoking = 18, drinking = 21, etc.), but if we have decided that a person is adult enough at 16 to be put behind a vehicle, that person imo then should be held accountable just as a 30 year old driver would be.

With regards to how a 30 year old random driver would be punished, I'm not sure what the law would say, but given the speed at which they were driving - racing - seems like involuntary manslaughter to me...?[/rquoter]

 

So are you backing up what he says in his post? Because that looks to be exactly what you're doing unless I'm missing something.

 

They're 18 and 19?

They're ADULTS

They NEED to be given jail time

 

I would think that 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter would be the minimum they should get.

 

Lots of people get this option, jail or military....happens all the time.

DD

 

I'm afraid it doesn't happen all the time, I don't think it happens at all, this option was dropped several several years ago.

 

Are you certain? I know a guy who was accused of stealing at Sears a couple of years ago and was given that very option, he joined the Navy.

DD

 

The Army addresses this issue in the Army Recruiting Regulation, Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-8b: "Applicant who, as a condition for any civil conviction or adverse disposition or any other reason through a civil or criminal court, is ordered or subjected to a sentence that implies or imposes enlistment into the Armed Forces of the United States is not eligible for enlistment.."

The Air Force Recruiting Regulation, AETCI 36-2002, table 1-1, lines 7 and 8, makes an applicant ineligible for enlistment if they are "released from restraint, or civil suit, or charges on the condition of entering military service, if the restraint, civil suit, or criminal charges would be reinstated if the applicant does not enter military service."

The Marine Corps Recruiting Regulation, MCO P1100.72B, Chapter 3, Section 2, Part H, Paragraph 12 states: "Applicants may not enlist as an alternative to criminal prosecution, indictment, incarceration, parole, probation, or other punitive sentence. They are ineligible for enlistment until the original assigned sentence would have been completed."

 

Of course that was stealing, so it wasn't an aggravated crime.....

 

It actually isn't as bad a statement as people make it seem. That psychiatrist was under oath, and what he said is scientifically true.

The use of that statement by the defense is what most disagree with. Even though a teenage mind does not make the same rational decisions as an adult, they still know racing at 90+ mph speeds is wrong and dangerous. That statement can't be used to defend them.

These men broke the law. They killed 3 innocent people and affected the family and friends. That family deserves justice, and to let these men walk off the hook is an outrage.

What is further troubling is the defense lawyers let murderers walk away. Lawyers have no consciences.

 

Criminal defense lawyers don't "let murderers walk away". Criminal defense lawyers protect the constitutional rights of defendants to a fair trial. Criminal defense lawyers hold prosecutors to their burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, limit evidence to that which is gathered in accordance with the law, and serve as an advocate for those who are in a very vulnerable position, most of whom have little or no understanding of the process which is going to determine whether or not their lives are going to get much, much worse. It is an easy profession for the ignorant to attack, but you will be happy a criminal defense lawyer is there if you are ever accused of a crime.

 

Yeah what a gross, ignorant statement to make about lawyers.

 

No, it doesn't. Maybe years and years ago. Go seek out a recruiter and ask them. I'm one of them, I would know.

 

These lawyers let their clients walk away from jail when they deserve it. I don't see how much more evidence you need to prove these two men were guilty of street racing and vehicular manslaughter.

I don't see how anyone with a conscience could sway jurors to let these criminals get away with a slap on the wrist.

 

How would you know if they are doing it to have charges dropped, would they even tell you?

DD

 

$

/

 

Once a lawyer decides to take on a case, he is obliged to protect the constitutional right of his clients. I think the conscience issue starts and ends at whether the lawyer should take on such a case or not in the first place. He should not take on this case if he had the 'conscience'. But once he made the decision to do it, the conscience issue had gone out the window. From that point onwards, he had to be professional to make a defense for his client based on his constitutional rights.