Darwin Award candidates

I didn't know how else to title this thread....

High School kid has a party at his parent's home, alcohol and pot involved; drunk 16 year old hops in a stolen car with four peole (he's driving) crashes and kills two 16 y/o girls.

Parents supplied the alcohol, allegedly knew about the pot.

If it were my kid killed, you bet I'd be standing at the jail gate when that ______ gets out of jail in 2 years!

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=768748

I'm a younger father of 3 kids....if they do anything resembling D&D when they're older, I will drive them to the lockup myself.

What amazed me is that somebody KILLED TWO PEOPLE and is in prison for a scant 2 to 7 years (and you better believe that he'll get out in closer to 2 years)! He should be there for fifty years! That's 25 per person killed. I barely think that's harsh enough.

That's why I said I would be standing at the gate when he got out. I'm old, I can do the time....

This is a tragedy for all involved. That being said; will anyone who has ever drank and then driven please refrain from comment.

I've never drank then driven and you can bet if it was my kids killed I'd be standing at the gate waiting for them to get out. Then I suppose I would have to just walk on in.

Two to seven is probably the going rate for a manslaughter charge in states where there isn't an extra alcohol or drug penalty and the defendant is a first-time offender with a guilty plea. My question is, why is no one prosecuting the parents for criminal negligence, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and accessory to manslaughter before the fact?

I'm thinking there will be a civil case for wrongful death since the parents knew of illegal activity (and supplied the catalyst in part) so they are negligent.

Jerry From LA wrote: Two to seven is probably the going rate for a manslaughter charge in states where there isn't an extra alcohol or drug penalty and the defendant is a first-time offender with a guilty plea. My question is, why is no one prosecuting the parents for criminal negligence, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and accessory to manslaughter before the fact? I'm thinking there will be a civil case for wrongful death since the parents knew of illegal activity (and supplied the catalyst in part) so they are negligent.

The parents are being tried. It doesn't look good for them.

and once the criminal trial is done for the parents.. you know the lawsuits will start

I am no D&D angel so I will shut up about that. Suffice it to say I have learned my lesson and thankfully no one was hurt.

This shows the idiocy people will stoop to so they can be their kid's 'buddy' and not a parent. It also shows just how badly it can backfire.

mad_machine wrote: and once the criminal trial is done for the parents.. you know the lawsuits will start

Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

ManofFewWords wrote: This is a tragedy for all involved. That being said; will anyone who has ever drank and then driven please refrain from comment.

I don't drink and drive. Ever. I call casting the first stone!!

confuZion3 wrote: The parents are being tried. It doesn't look good for them.

According to the article, they're being tried for endangering the welfare of a child. That's a wrist slap compared to accessory to manslaughter. Plus they have a documented history of criminal negligence.

As a father of two I hate to be the devil’s advocate here but isn’t there any assumption of risk on the part of the two teens that were killed in the accident? Unless the impaired driver forced them into the car at gunpoint I would think that they had some role in their own demise. It seems like kind of a personal responsibility issue.

CrackMonkey wrote:

mad_machine wrote: and once the criminal trial is done for the parents.. you know the lawsuits will start

Can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

but you can put a turnip in a blender and chop it to bits....

the law assumes that children under 18 are not accountable for their own stupidity

mad_machine wrote: the law assumes that children under 18 are not accountable for their own stupidity

But the driver of the Car was 16 too.

turboswede wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the law assumes that children under 18 are not accountable for their own stupidity

But the driver of the Car was 16 too.

.. and fed beer by his parents.

Parents trial ended yesterday.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=770051