It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Affluenza’ teen allegedly defies probation to play beer pong

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

Why?

You do know it's rather dangerous for "celebrity" inmates, right?

Which in turn makes it dangerous for the staff in those prisons. Because they're the ones who have to keep things under control.




We still have a choice in which job we choose right ?.... Perhaps "choosing wisely" is a lost art or some people enjoy authority over others.... The old saying " if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen" is appropriate?




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

I couldn't careless about him. But, the officers are required by law, on pain of going to jail themselves, to protect anyone in their care.

Lock the little micro-cephalic moron up in PC for the foreseeable future, and call it a good deed done.


No idea they were that strict over you side now.

Here officers still just stick it down as "accidents" and at most some one losses a job.
Pedo and serial killers and other high profile inmates are notorious here for getting badly injuredby "accidents" in prison

edit on 4-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

Why?

You do know it's rather dangerous for "celebrity" inmates, right?

Which in turn makes it dangerous for the staff in those prisons. Because they're the ones who have to keep things under control.




We still have a choice in which job we choose right ?.... Perhaps "choosing wisely" is a lost art or some people enjoy authority over others.... The old saying " if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen" is appropriate?



No he has a point.

If the corrections officers face criminal responsibility as well as risk to there own saftey its not fair on them, its a grotty job already for them and someone has to do it.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Excuse me?

There's a little thing called the rule of Law. Yeah, this kid is a POS. I'm very familiar with the breed.

He's, hopefully, going to go to prison. Sufficient punishment to be locked away for a goodly portion of the remainder of his life.

Putting him in General Population is tantamount to a death sentence, or worse. But, by law, the officers are required to protect him. So they're supposed to pick and choose which laws to enforce, just so some here can get some vicarious revenge?

Forgive me, but that's just a load of crap.

I couldn't careless about the kid. He matters less to me than the mud I wipe off my shoes. But those officers? I have family in that line of work, and many friends. I'm not going to see them put at needless risk just so someone outside of it can get their vicarious vengeance on.

There is a certain level of risk entailed in the profession, it's part of the job. But putting this kid in GP brings unnecessary risk into it. Emphasis on the unnecessary.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




If it takes a wrongfull accusation of probation for him to be locked up were he belongs so be it! Call it delayed justice.


Are you being serious here? It's hard to know when someone is is trying to make a point or just an idiot these days. You don't seem that dumb.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

It varies from state to state. Here in Washington state, an officer who fails to, in good faith, stop an assault is liable for, if I remember correctly up to five to ten years in prison, loss of pension.

Trust me, most of 'em would rather do most anything else. Some of the stories I've heard would curl your hair. But it's the law, and it's, as much as it may pain me to say it, the right thing to do, as well.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

True... But like any job there is a choice....if one chooses to be a screw that is on them ....I chose to be a landscaper and now my back is FUBAR.... It was my choice and I have no one else to blame..... I agree that a prison gaurd is a rubbish job...it still is a choice...



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Excuse me?

There's a little thing called the rule of Law. Yeah, this kid is a POS. I'm very familiar with the breed.

He's, hopefully, going to go to prison. Sufficient punishment to be locked away for a goodly portion of the remainder of his life.

Putting him in General Population is tantamount to a death sentence, or worse. But, by law, the officers are required to protect him. So they're supposed to pick and choose which laws to enforce, just so some here can get some vicarious revenge?

Forgive me, but that's just a load of crap.

I couldn't careless about the kid. He matters less to me than the mud I wipe off my shoes. But those officers? I have family in that line of work, and many friends. I'm not going to see them put at needless risk just so someone outside of it can get their vicarious vengeance on.

There is a certain level of risk entailed in the profession, it's part of the job. But putting this kid in GP brings unnecessary risk into it. Emphasis on the unnecessary.




Right....so what is your solution ?

Should the kid go free so as to protect the poor prison guards?
edit on 4-12-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Did I say anything even resembling setting him free? I really don't think I did. I said, and I'll repeat it just for you...

He should be placed in Protective Custody for the term of his sentence. Where did that imply setting him free?

Solution?

In this case? Lock the little POS up. The lawyers who were paid off, or the judge, or all of 'em together should be disbarred at the least, preferably locked up themselves if the law allows.

Overall?

Citizen oversight. It's that simple. We have to get involved. Government is, supposedly, of... by... and for the people. If it doesn't work that way, and it doesn't in all too many cases. Who's fault it that?

The solution is simple. Not easy, mind. But simple.

Time for us to actually give a damn about what's going on in our courthouses, police stations, city halls, and town council meeting halls.


edit on 12/4/2015 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Solution?

In this case? Lock the little POS up. The lawyers who were paid off, or the judge, or all of 'em together should be disbarred at the least, preferably locked up themselves if the law allows.

Overall?

Citizen oversight. It's that simple. We have to get involved. Government is, supposedly, of... by... and for the people. If it doesn't work that way, and it doesn't in all too many cases. Who's fault it that?

The solution is simple. Not easy, mind. But simple.

Time for us to actually give a damn about what's going on in our courthouses, police stations, city halls, and town council meeting halls.






That's more like it....and I agree wholeheartedly..... This is just one of many issues and the people really need to take the reigns as it is quite clear those that are charged with job are not keeping up their end of the bargain



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




In this case? Lock the little POS up. The lawyers who were paid off, or the judge, or all of 'em together should be disbarred at the least, preferably locked up themselves if the law allows.


So you automatically believe without any information that these people should be locked up?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I should add as long as protective custody does not mean some cushy rich person prison

Assuming he is actually guilty
edit on 4-12-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Of course not.

Of course you investigate any accusations/possibilities of wrong. then it goes to court. Then comes jail.

Locking up without trial? Seriously? Assuming you've read past posting by me, when have I ever advocated that? I certainly don't remember a time.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: crazyewok




If it takes a wrongfull accusation of probation for him to be locked up were he belongs so be it! Call it delayed justice.


Are you being serious here? It's hard to know when someone is is trying to make a point or just an idiot these days. You don't seem that dumb.


No deadly serious he escaped justice. That POS belongs behind bars. If it takes a “probation” violation even if not true for him to go were that monster belongs then so be it.
The courts failed the first time and let him walk…..it only fair they fail a second time and take that freedom away



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

Meet the next Donald........



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It's obvious you've never been in a state prison. Cushy isn't a word used to describe them.

I've taken tours of prisons, and no, cushy doesn't apply.

Washington State Penitentiary's PC cell measure approx. eight feet by ten. Some are windowless. The ones that do have windoes, the windoes are very small, and usually up near the ceiling. You might see a patch of sky, but that's it. Once a day, you are taken to a special yard, with no exercise equipment, other than maybe a basketball hoop, and you get, I believe, a half hour, then it's back to the cell. The cells have a toilet, a bed, small shelves, and a table.

That, or something like it, would be his life. Cushy, it ain't.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: seagull




In this case? Lock the little POS up. The lawyers who were paid off, or the judge, or all of 'em together should be disbarred at the least, preferably locked up themselves if the law allows.


So you automatically believe without any information that these people should be locked up?


YES! That POS killed 4 people and left another permnetly brain damaged for life!

Not only that but this POS already had a criminal history of drink and drug driveing!

If that is not a complete failer of Justice I dont know what is!

Especially when the same judge sent a poor kid away for 10 years for a single manslaughter charge.

Well he should get a trial, but if the judge has any sort of sense it should just be to dots the i's and cross the T's.
There can only be justice if he is behind bars.
edit on 4-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Well thankfully no I have never been to prison and I hope I never do....given a choice that is


Let's not pretend that the justice system does not have two tiers of justice.....



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I know a few Texans and am surprised that the families of the victims haven't taken the arrogant little twit "behind the barn" for some lessons in life. Likely, daddy has provided some protection for junior.

As he appears not to have changed his behavior, I suspect that someday he will cross the wrong people and karma will catch up to him.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: benwyatt
Well, why don't we go after the real culprits..... You know, the ones making laws saying this is ok?




Unfortunately, you can't really make a law preventing a style of defense. Especially when other defenses such as "He robbed that store and killed than man because he grew up in a poor neighborhood" - an equally asinine defense. It's up to judges to rule against these cases, should they appear, to set a precedent. If a judge rules against case like that, it set's a legal precedent by which other judges can help make their decision. That way this defense could never be practically used again.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join