drunk kid kils 4 injures 11 no jail time

[sifreak21]

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.


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.


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...


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?



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.


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.



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



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


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.


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.


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.




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



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.

You do realize affluenza is not a read diagnosis right? In court if holds as much weight as sating he has a pet unicorn so he should get off. On top of that a vast vast majority of prisoners came from very very poor families. And I venture to assume the grew up with only one parent who didn't teach them right from wrong. Why are they sitting in jail now? Why has there never been a case in history when someone killed people and used a made up disease to get the " OK u killed someone while under the influence of a drug you stole all illegally. Don't do it again.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

And finally, for tonight:

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.

Regardless, The Marquis, of the rationality you choose to employ, the phrase "would have", "could have" or "should have" is most commonly used to express an option that the speaker of said phrase chose not to employ.

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

The Marquis, is that not one of the myriad of lauded increased abilities that alcohol bestows upon its dedicate users? < HEAVY SARCASM!

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, whether or not you are conducting some sort of "Social/Cultural Experiment", and what you perceive as the result of said "Experiment", I did not "dismiss" your "comments", nor did I "habit(ually) accept any circumstance or condition" to "avoid really thinking about" those "comments".
As a matter of fact, The Marquis, I expressed my considered opinion of your "comments"!

BTW, The Marquis, would what you stated ^^above^^ not be an example of what you were so nice to Post a definition of earlier...:

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.

...you do understand that I am of course referring to the...:

...I do it a lot. In public, on occasion,... I also enjoy watching

...part of your statement.

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:

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.


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.

The Marquis, are your ^^above^^ statements "meant " to be taken as "sarcasm" or part of your "Social/Cultural Experiment"?
That position will not fly because you supplied many of "the details behind" behind your "chosen - to be addressed Case", which DID NOT involve THE KILLING 4 PEOPLE and PHYSICALLY INJURING 11 MORE - but only had to do with the THEFT OF MONEY!!

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.

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".

My mistake, The Marquis, for not seeing earlier, that "the context behind ", nor that your "fun in coming here...to find support for" your "own petty thoughts and prejudices", was just "self amusement".

The Marquis, I am not sure that your claimed "Social/Cultural Experiment" is anything more than just an example of one of "tools" in your " little box of research tools, most of which are worn from long use", that you utilize as a ...possible?...:

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.

 

[The Marquis]

Regardless, The Marquis, of the rationality you choose to employ, the phrase "would have", "could have" or "should have" is most commonly used to express an option that the speaker of said phrase chose not to employ.

TDMOE, If I were to speak any more plainly than I do now, I would be banned. The rules of this site, while somewhat more relaxed than some others I might name, are nonetheless designed to protect the tender sensibilities of those who frequent it. A British vernacular is employed far more usefully than that of you Americans, when one wishes to convey contempt without stepping over any lines with regard to legal use of language.

Any business venture understands the conflict between quality and quantity when determining profit margins. In addition, the rules of society, any society, exist nowadays primarily to protect those who would choose to dwell within that society from the harsher aspects of reality.
Why? Because the conflict between mass and quality is in the process of being resolved.

I'm only slightly surprised that you lot are capable of divining a conspiracy theory behind 9/11, by way of example, without ever once realising that all of you here are merely sales figures.
The rules of this site aren't designed to protect you. Nor are they designed to encourage diversity of opinion.
They're designed to attract the maximum possible numbers in membership, preying upon your own desire to be heard, and for your opinion to be appreciated.




TDMOE, I think you're way out of your depth here.
Go pick on someone your own size. You're boring the hell out of me.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

TDMOE, I think you're way out of your depth here.
Go pick on someone your own size. You're boring the hell out of me.

The Marquis, what you think does not affect me.

You have no idea of my size, and I am "picking on" no one.

How did you get "hell" into you in the first place?


The Marquis...Meh!