Red Mosquito

Lament wrote:Things like this make me just wish the whole world would blow up.

N&D threads? It hasn't been the same since Punk David left.

broken iris wrote:N&D threads? It hasn't been the same since Punk David left.

This.

I'm worried about an affluenza epidemic now.

Lament wrote:Things like this make me just wish the whole world would blow up.

Why? There are plenty of awesome things that go on in the world for there to be any need for it to blow up.

McParadigm wrote:

Sometimes people post things that I don't get, like this video. It makes me wonder was the reason for the post to give me hope that yes, things are truly incomprehensible.

surfndestroy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Sometimes people post things that I don't get, like this video. It makes me wonder was the reason for the post to give me hope that yes, things are truly incomprehensible.

will you please stop?

I'm Scott Hoy.

The point is, no matter how rough the affluenza defense is, at least he wasn't playing video games while having a rollover single car accident that the people in the back seat were...no, wait. Let me try again. At least he wasn't in the back seat of a video game while a roll was getting..no. Uh. At least video games weren't in the back seat blaming the, uh, parents....

I've watched that ten times trying to understand it.

It seems like an unfair swipe at my favorite video game, Backseat Crash Blamers.

McParadigm wrote:The point is, no matter how rough the affluenza defense is, at least he wasn't playing video games while having a rollover single car accident that the people in the back seat were...no, wait. Let me try again. At least he wasn't in the back seat of a video game while a roll was getting..no. Uh. At least video games weren't in the back seat blaming the, uh, parents....

I feel so good. I got it. Life is incomprehensible. I won the day!.

So... what if the judge was really accepting "affluenza" as a way of officially blaming the parents in criminal court to help the civil lawsuits, without appearing to do so?

"Couch may very well have mental health issues. Few psychologists would argue that being raised in an atmosphere of instant gratification and negligible consequences for bad behavior is healthy for child development. In addition, Couch’s risky behavior might indicate alcoholism and, if he truly were evidencing a pathological sense of entitlement or lack of empathy for others, it’s possible he might be diagnosable with a personality disorder. These are legitimate conditions, although they typically do not result in such a massive reduction in sentencing as was seen in this case. It is ironic that, in arguing Couch is a victim of bad parenting free of consequences for antisocial behavior, the defense and judge appear to have merely continued exactly this pattern, demanding unbelievably soft consequences for the death of four."

Read more: "Affluenza" is Junk Science | TIME.com http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/14/psycho ... z2nZ1Js7DX"

Wouldn't it make more sense to give an extreme punishment to a "victim" of affluenza?

How does it serve society to have him out killing people?

It would make more sense to lock him and his family away forever.

broken iris wrote:So... what if the judge was really accepting "affluenza" as a way of officially blaming the parents in criminal court to help the civil lawsuits, without appearing to do so?

I've wondered about that.

stip wrote:

broken iris wrote:So... what if the judge was really accepting "affluenza" as a way of officially blaming the parents in criminal court to help the civil lawsuits, without appearing to do so?

I've wondered about that.

It's pretty common in Canada for juvenile sentencing to take into account upbringing. This is even enshrined law for Natives of any age. Is this not the case in the US?

it probably varies from state to state and judge to judge, but I am not a lawyer

Electromatic wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to give an extreme punishment to a "victim" of affluenza?

How does it serve society to have him out killing people?

It would make more sense to lock him and his family away forever.

Things will become a lot clearer when the case is made that bad parenting caused all of this. Until now it's only been an implied thing because ultimately parents are legally responsible for the actions of their minor children.

Hungry lawyers with their dissatisfied and enraged victims will sort it out for the rest of us, maybe.

Meanwhile, an 18 yr old goes into his school to kill a teacher. Wash, rinse, repeat..

mookie wrote:"It is ironic that, in arguing Couch is a victim of bad parenting free of consequences for antisocial behavior, the defense and judge appear to have merely continued exactly this pattern, demanding unbelievably soft consequences for the death of four."

That's what I've been thinking all along.

"Why did you kill all those people?"
"I've never suffered consequences for my actions because my family's rich."
"Well, no point in starting now!

i like money

theplatypus wrote:team rich kid