GUILTY TX - Ethan Couch 'Affluenza Teen' DUI driver who killed four gets probation, 2013 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blondie in Spokane said:
She told Daily Mail Online: 'I had all the facts – most people don't. They just don't understand.'
Asked whether she regrets handing Couch probation in light of his fleeing to Mexico and being handed over to an adult court and remanded in custody, she said: 'No. I have nothing else to say.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...UR-people-drunk-driving-crash-says-facts.html
Click to expand...

I wonder if maybe money she was paid off is one of the facts we don’t have?:thinking:
 
faw720 said:
Well now, isn't that just wonderful???????????? I'm impressed that she is so knowledgeable & informed.:shakehead:
Click to expand...

And well-compensated. She is a murderer as much as her pimply-faced little precious is.

And she will never spend one second of her life paying for the lives she cost when she took that bribe. Burn in Hell, evil *advertiser censored*.
 
EllieBee said:
And well-compensated. She is a murderer as much as her pimply-faced little precious is.

And she will never spend one second of her life paying for the lives she cost when she took that bribe. Burn in Hell, evil *advertiser censored*.
Click to expand...

This seems WAY over-the-top to call a judge an "evil *advertiser censored*" and stating as fact that she took a bribe. And tell me again what lives did she cost?
 
faw720 said:
Well now, isn't that just wonderful???????????? I'm impressed that she is so knowledgeable & informed.:shakehead:
Click to expand...

EC couldn't even follow probation she imposed on him until he turned 19. And he run off to Mexico with his mommy. And she still thinks she did the right thing? Well, I am sure is glad she retired.
 
jjenny said:
EC couldn't even follow probation she imposed on him until he turned 19. And he run off to Mexico with his mommy. And she still thinks she did the right thing? Well, I am sure is glad she retired.
Click to expand...

I personally would really be interested - in a decade or so when the judge could speak without having people trying to vilify her - what facts she felt were important in this case, and what facts she felt she was privy to that others weren't. I spent some time looking at the photos of the wreck scene, starting with the woman in the large white SUV who spun out on that curve in the road and ended up in a single vehicle wreck at the scene that caused the people who owned that yard to come out of their house to figure out who had wrecked their car in their front yard and destroyed their mailbox. Then there was the truck of the man who came to help out at the scene of the spun out SUV wreck. And then what that would have looked like to a car coming down the road in the dark? I would really be very interested in the police re-enactment of what that piece of roadway looked like, with a wrecked car and then a vehicle parked there to help out, and people standing there offering assistance, and if that's what the judge is referring to as information she had vs. what the public had.

So, in this wreck, first a woman came flying around that bend and wrecked her SUV into a residential front yard and knocking over the mailbox. Then that single vehicle wreck garnered attention and 4 people who came to help that first spin out on the road bend were killed when Ethan and his truck came upon the scene of the first one vehicle crash. Some of the media stories refer to that car as "disabled", but in fact, it was completely wrecked by a woman who flung it into a curve minutes before Ethan came around that same exact bend in the road, drunk, with a truck load of friends who were also drunk. Except, I guess, the girl who needed tampons.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-happened-night-accident-left-people/story?id=34481444
 
I couldn't care less what the car looked like. It's irrelevant.
We know relevant facts full well.
EC was a minor, thus shouldn't have been drinking at all. Let alone drinking and driving.
The relevant facts are that EC was driving drunk.
Nothing this judge claims is going to change that.
 
jjenny said:
I couldn't care less what the car looked like. It's irrelevant.
We know relevant facts full well.
EC was a minor, thus shouldn't have been drinking at all. Let alone drinking and driving.
The relevant facts are that EC was driving drunk.
Nothing this judge claims is going to change that.
Click to expand...

I agree. He pled guilty to four counts of manslaughter. She didn't find that he wasn't at fault at all. She just gave him a really light punishment.
 
But if a kid was born and grew up in a gang affiliate house and was never taught right from wrong; I'm sure she would have not been so lenient. Jmo.
 
JeannaT said:
I personally would really be interested - in a decade or so when the judge could speak without having people trying to vilify her - what facts she felt were important in this case, and what facts she felt she was privy to that others weren't. I spent some time looking at the photos of the wreck scene, starting with the woman in the large white SUV who spun out on that curve in the road and ended up in a single vehicle wreck at the scene that caused the people who owned that yard to come out of their house to figure out who had wrecked their car in their front yard and destroyed their mailbox. Then there was the truck of the man who came to help out at the scene of the spun out SUV wreck. And then what that would have looked like to a car coming down the road in the dark? I would really be very interested in the police re-enactment of what that piece of roadway looked like, with a wrecked car and then a vehicle parked there to help out, and people standing there offering assistance, and if that's what the judge is referring to as information she had vs. what the public had.

So, in this wreck, first a woman came flying around that bend and wrecked her SUV into a residential front yard and knocking over the mailbox. Then that single vehicle wreck garnered attention and 4 people who came to help that first spin out on the road bend were killed when Ethan and his truck came upon the scene of the first one vehicle crash. Some of the media stories refer to that car as "disabled", but in fact, it was completely wrecked by a woman who flung it into a curve minutes before Ethan came around that same exact bend in the road, drunk, with a truck load of friends who were also drunk. Except, I guess, the girl who needed tampons.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-dui-case-happened-night-accident-left-people/story?id=34481444
Click to expand...

JeannaT, I have tried really hard to understand your position in this case and I find myself flummoxed. I get that the children in Ethan's truck should have known better and should not have made the decision to ride with him; it does not negate his culpability in my opinion, but I understand what you are saying because they made the decision along with him. However, I am not getting what you are inferring about the person who wrecked before Ethan. The person obviously navigated poorly and made a mistake, but that person's mistake has not been reported to be due to impairment or negligence. To me, your references seem to lead to it being just as much that first driver's fault as Ethan's. The first incident may have ended up with a disabled vehicle, but that does not mean there was extreme negligence by that vehicle's driver because I think it is safe to assume Ethan's insurance carrier diligently investigated the accident and was not able to place any blame on the first accident because insurance companies do not pay if they can find a way not to. (sorry for the run on sentence...I am too tired to figure out how to fix it.)
 
perfectingpink said:
JeannaT, I have tried really hard to understand your position in this case and I find myself flummoxed. I get that the children in Ethan's truck should have known better and should not have made the decision to ride with him; it does not negate his culpability in my opinion, but I understand what you are saying because they made the decision along with him. However, I am not getting what you are inferring about the person who wrecked before Ethan. The person obviously navigated poorly and made a mistake, but that person's mistake has not been reported to be due to impairment or negligence. To me, your references seem to lead to it being just as much that first driver's fault as Ethan's. The first incident may have ended up with a disabled vehicle, but that does not mean there was extreme negligence by that vehicle's driver because I think it is safe to assume Ethan's insurance carrier diligently investigated the accident and was not able to place any blame on the first accident because insurance companies do not pay if they can find a way not to. (sorry for the run on sentence...I am too tired to figure out how to fix it.)
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Plus that same judge sentenced another kid to 20 years for almost the same thing. Now the car wasn't his but the fatalities and critical victims were way less. Jmo.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Totally agree. Plus that same judge sentenced another kid to 20 years for almost the same thing. Now the car wasn't his but the fatalities and critical victims were way less. Jmo.
Click to expand...

I will never understand this judge's sentencing guidelines. I hate to think she was bought off, because I do not want to acknowledge a person in such authority can compromise what is right for mere money, but I am leaning toward that theory. It honestly bothers me I can think something like this, but I have no other idea how this woman could come to the conclusion she did that Ethan's sentence was just.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Totally agree. Plus that same judge sentenced another kid to 20 years for almost the same thing. Now the car wasn't his but the fatalities and critical victims were way less. Jmo.
Click to expand...

And the car that Ethan Couch was driving was not his either.

But some people just like to go to extremes to find obscure, illogical explanations for stuff, while ignoring the obvious.

This case was 100% about “affluenza”, the entitlement of the upper-class. That was the defense, and the only defense. Not only does Ethan Couch suffer from affluenza, but so does his parents, the judge, and millions of other Americans.

As long as we have people in this country who have so much money, that they can afford to drive drunk, kill people, bribe judges, pay restitution and face no other consequences whats so ever, they will continue to do it.
 
KaaBoom said:
And the car that Ethan Couch was driving was not his either.

But some people just like to go to extremes to find obscure, illogical explanations for stuff, while ignoring the obvious.

This case was 100% about “affluenza”, the entitlement of the upper-class. That was the defense, and the only defense. Not only does Ethan Couch suffer from affluenza, but so does his parents, the judge, and millions of other Americans.

As long as we have people in this country who have so much money, that they can afford to drive drunk, kill people, bribe judges, pay restitution and face no other consequences whats so ever, they will continue to do it.
Click to expand...

It really makes me mad there are people out there who are just as you described. We were VERY poor until my mother married my father (not bio, but he is my Dad!) who does quite well for our family, yet he would NEVER let any of us get away with what Ethan's parents seem to think is normal. I am thankful to be privileged but even more thankful my father never let me get away with even being 10 minutes late for curfew!
 
perfectingpink said:
JeannaT, I have tried really hard to understand your position in this case and I find myself flummoxed. I get that the children in Ethan's truck should have known better and should not have made the decision to ride with him; it does not negate his culpability in my opinion, but I understand what you are saying because they made the decision along with him. However, I am not getting what you are inferring about the person who wrecked before Ethan. The person obviously navigated poorly and made a mistake, but that person's mistake has not been reported to be due to impairment or negligence. To me, your references seem to lead to it being just as much that first driver's fault as Ethan's. The first incident may have ended up with a disabled vehicle, but that does not mean there was extreme negligence by that vehicle's driver because I think it is safe to assume Ethan's insurance carrier diligently investigated the accident and was not able to place any blame on the first accident because insurance companies do not pay if they can find a way not to. (sorry for the run on sentence...I am too tired to figure out how to fix it.)
Click to expand...

Now I'm terribly confused. I thought the first car that wrecked did so because it had a tire blow out. I can understand loosing control if that is what happened.
 
perfectingpink said:
JeannaT, I have tried really hard to understand your position in this case and I find myself flummoxed. I get that the children in Ethan's truck should have known better and should not have made the decision to ride with him; it does not negate his culpability in my opinion, but I understand what you are saying because they made the decision along with him. However, I am not getting what you are inferring about the person who wrecked before Ethan. The person obviously navigated poorly and made a mistake, but that person's mistake has not been reported to be due to impairment or negligence. To me, your references seem to lead to it being just as much that first driver's fault as Ethan's. The first incident may have ended up with a disabled vehicle, but that does not mean there was extreme negligence by that vehicle's driver because I think it is safe to assume Ethan's insurance carrier diligently investigated the accident and was not able to place any blame on the first accident because insurance companies do not pay if they can find a way not to. (sorry for the run on sentence...I am too tired to figure out how to fix it.)
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning to imply extreme negligence on the part of the driver of the first wrecked car. I'm wondering what facts the judge alluded to that the public wasn't aware of. The media has roundly discussed the first vehicle as "disabled", when in fact, it was violently wrecked in a one vehicle accident moments before Ethan came flying up, drunk with a truck full of partying teenagers. Because the driver - apparently not impaired - completely lost control on that stretch of the road. So, when I consider that, and the fact that this wasn't a quiet gathering of folks tending to a car with a dead battery or electrical problem, but one flung sideways into the yard, I get a different image. I wonder, could someone sober have wrecked when coming up on that scene? Was it not so completely unbelievable that a truck would hit cars and people in that instance, in the dark, that night? I really would like to hear her side of the story, and what evidence she heard that she feels the public doesn't know, and my suspicion is that the scene where the wreck happened didn't look like what the media has portrayed.

And I must say, I'm extremely grateful for private messaging on this board or I would think I was alone in my feelings in this case. As often is the case, a subject thread becomes extremely polarized and anyone who believes in the view more in the center is run off, and those posting that view won't do so publicly. And I do appreciate, sincerely, you've tried "really hard" to understand my position. My position remains - very few people are truly "evil", and Ethan Couch and certainly this judge aren't one of those few.
 
I would also like to know about what this judge knows that we don't know. But I am pretty sure for different reasons than you.
As for EC, the facts are pretty clear.
He was drunk. He was driving. He was also speeding. Nobody is disputing that. I don't see any viable excuses for any of that (no matter how hard somebody tries to come up with ones).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 2,031 (members: 138, guests: 1,893)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
1,893
Total visitors
2,031
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,234
Messages
18,105,657
Members
230,992
Latest member
Bella257
Back
Top