'Affluenza teen' Ethan Couch leaves Texas jail after nearly two years

[truthatallcost]

Yeah? Sounds like you Klansmen might have a problem!

No, we get together on Sundays for barbecues with the BHIs. They make really good brisket!

 

[truthatallcost]

Lmao, your posting history shows different. No need to hide. Subtlety is for those who don't know you.

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

Blah blah... You're always so overly dramatic. Lighten up.

I noticed you changed your avatar... I've won the Hermann War I see. Lol.

 

[Lerxst]

Not all of us got stuck at 7th grade.

Very good point.

You clearly made it to 8th.

Guess you showed him.

 

[tres borrachos]

Oh look, you think you are playing some sort of game now.
Figures.

Again.

A system not working (which is what you claimed) would be a system working outside of the law.
Do you really not understand that?

No, a system not working is not outside the law. I never said it was. I said the punishment didn't fit the crime, and the victims didn't get justice, and Couch didn't pay a penalty, which is why he continues to be unremorseful.

You're really not doing well today. Talk a walk maybe? You are seeing things that aren't there.

 

[tres borrachos]

Shh..he'll threaten to buy Debate Politics if he hears us talking about his special special boy.

His father threatened to buy the kid's school or something weird like that when the kid was in trouble or not able to do something. Odd family.

 

[Surrealistik]

No.
It was not based on an inability to pay.

Are you really going to make the argument that if the guy had the money to spend that Couch's parents did, that he wouldn't have been able to find anyone accredited to rehabilitate him? That seems rather implausible.

I mean, it's not like the state was going to pay the hundreds of thousands / YR to have this guy attend the same place Couch was supposed to, or another comparable facility; the provider options are limited.

 

[poweRob]

Money, that's all you need.

Yup. I keep saying this... Lady justice isn't blind. She sees money just fine.

 

[truthatallcost]

His father threatened to buy the kid's school or something weird like that when the kid was in trouble or not able to do something. Odd family.

It was a private school, and they contacted Couch's parents to ask why he was driving himself to school at age 13, Lmao. The parents threatened to buy the school and shut it down.

 

[Excon]

Are you really going to make the argument that if the guy had the money to spend that Couch's parents did, that he wouldn't have been able to find anyone accredited to rehabilitate him? That seems rather implausible.

The report is that no one would accept him.
Not that it had anything to do with not having the funds.

I mean, it's not like the state was going to pay the hundreds of thousands / YR to have this guy attend the same place Couch was supposed to, or another comparable facility; the provider options are limited.

1. The state wasn't going to pay for Couch either.
2. To the underlined. You have been reading.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Denno - but he thinks these people are really scary. Unlike neo-nazis marching with "good people". Any who, I digress, kind of amazing that Texas' justice is so weak.

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

Both groups have the same problem, the exact same problem.
Neither group can point to ANYTHING that they have DONE that has made the world, made society or life in this world, better.
Members of both groups will be UNABLE to point to any one single thing that THEY have ever done which has made the world better.
Not better in THEIR OPINION, better in point of FACT.

The same can also be said, by the way, about people who only live to talk crap about Trump, by the way!
If they don't have any original ideas, solid ideas, a plan and a focused platform, then that group is also doomed to failure just as much as the Klan, the Nazis (white supremacists and white nationalists) and the Black Hebrew Israelites.

 

[Excon]

Yup. I keep saying this... Lady justice isn't blind. She sees money just fine.

No.
Money can buy you a better defense as is normal, as those with more experience, and those better able to perform their craft, cost more.

 

[poweRob]

No.
Money can buy you a better defense as is normal, as those with more experience and better able to perform their craft, cost more.

Stop talking. You have too much. You know you want to keep putting your tongue deep in Anus' orifice.

 

[Excon]

No, a system not working is not outside the law.

Wrong. A system not working means it is not doing things according to the law. That is outside of the law.
In this case everything was inside of the bounds of the law which shows the law was working.

I never said it was.

That is a dumb reply and you know it.

I said the punishment didn't fit the crime,

Under the JJ System it most certainly did, as evidenced by similar sentences being given. You not liking the applicable sentence is irrelevant to that objective fact.

and the victims didn't get justice,

They most certainly did regardless of how you or they feel about it.
Justice is the system operating as it does, not a certain outcome. In this case, it operated as it does. Feelings do not change that.

and Couch didn't pay a penalty,

Yes he did.
Just because you disagree with objective reality does not mean he didn't.

Supervised release is most certainly a penalty, which he has to endure for 6 more years.

which is why he continues to be unremorseful.

FFS. Doh!
You really are not doing well with all these objectively false claims you have been making.

"[Couch] will now serve the remaining six years of his period of community supervision under the terms and conditions imposed by the court," his lawyers, Scott Brown and Reagan Wynn, said in a statement to ABC News. "From the beginning, Ethan has admitted his conduct, accepted responsibility for his actions, and felt true remorse for the terrible consequences of those actions.

'Affluenza teen' Ethan Couch released from jail

You're really not doing well today. Talk a walk maybe? You are seeing things that aren't there.

I have no idea why you choose to make false statements that actually appear to be projections, but that is clearly on you.

 

[Surrealistik]

1. The state wasn't going to pay for Couch either.

Yes obviously. My point is that there is no way he was going to get/have the funds/sponsorship necessary to attend these elite rehabilitation institutions; he does not have any practical access to them, and I very much doubt he or anyone else applied to see whether they would accept him for obvious reasons.

The report is that no one would accept him.
Not that it had anything to do with not having the funds.

Again, is there anything to suggest that not a single provider would take him on assuming money were no object, as opposed to the subset of providers that was practically accessible to him, whether or not their treatment was provided free, out of pocket, or by the state? Is it reasonable to make this assumption in the absence of evidence that explicitly supports it? Do you legitimately believe that any amount of money would not have in any way materially improved his access to treatment?

 

[Excon]

Again, is there anything to suggest that not a single provider would take him on assuming money were no object, as opposed to the subset of providers that was practically accessible to him, whether or not their treatment was provided free, out of pocket, or by the state? Is it reasonable to make this assumption in the absence of evidence that explicitly supports it? Do you legitimately believe that any amount of money would not have in any way materially improved his access to treatment?

No! It is not reasonable to assume facts not in evidence in a legal discussion.

 

[Surrealistik]

No! It is not reasonable to assume facts not in evidence in a legal discussion.

Alright, so we can probably agree that when we're talking about 'no one accepting him', this refers to a limited subset of providers within this kid's practical means to access, and not every single provider recognized by the courts as having the authority to rehabilitate him. Moreover, we can probably agree that money expands the number of providers that this kid would have practical access to, and that he would have been likely to find at least one provider willing to rehabilitate him assuming he had resources to spend on par with Couch's dad.

Maybe it's indeed possible that even with a multimillion dollar fortune to spend on care he still would have been unable to find anyone, but I find that extremely unlikely.

 

[Excon]

Alright, so we can probably agree that when we're talking about 'no one accepting him', this refers to a limited subset of providers within this kid's practical means to access, and not every single provider recognized by the courts as having the authority to rehabilitate him. Moreover, we can probably agree that money expands the number of providers that this kid would have practical access to, and that he would have been likely to find at least one provider willing to rehabilitate him assuming he had resources to spend on par with Couch's dad.

Maybe it's indeed possible that even with a multimillion dollar fortune to spend on care he still would have been unable to find anyone, but I find that extremely unlikely.

No. The report is that no one would take him, not that they could not pay.

 

[Excon]

Now I'm sure you'll admit that our justice system isn't completely blind to race and definitely won't launch into denial screaming "fake news". It's certainly the facts and the minorities that are wrong, not you.

Please spare everyone your hilariously false and mischaracterized foam.

OK here:

Disparity ≠ "incredibly racist".


NAACP link?
They point to disparities. Again, disparities does not mean "incredibly racist", let alone racist to begin with.
They also make no assertion as to why the disparities exist.

Drug use disparity? iLOL A survey based on "self reporting", which is always cited in these stupid arguments, which has never been shown to be a viable metric, especially in-comparison to actual crimes committed.

It is actually hilarious when folks think self reporting of drug use is actually a meaningful metric.


So clearly there is nothing at the provided NAACP link to support your claim of "incredibly racist".





Your second link, a The Washington Post article pointing out disparities exist.
We all know disparities exist. Nowhere in the article does it confirm your assertion though.

Having disparities does not mean it is based on race, let alone that the system is "incredibly racist" as you claim.

Here is the relevant information they link to.
Please quote exactly what you think supports your claim of "incredibly racist".

Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report
US Sentencing Commission​

University of Michigan Law School
University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Articles - Faculty Scholarship
2014
Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences​

No one denies that disparities exist.
The only question left is why.

 

[Surrealistik]

No. The report is that no one would take him, not that they could not pay.

I'll take that as meaning you either actually believe that literally every last institution with the authority to rehabilitate wouldn't take up his case, or believe that this is plausible enough to the point of meriting consideration, both of which are patently ludicrous positions.

 

[Excon]

I'll take that as meaning you either actually believe that literally every last institution with the authority to rehabilitate wouldn't take up his case, or believe that this is plausible enough to the point of meriting consideration, both of which are patently ludicrous positions.

The report was that no one would take him, not about being accepted but not being able to afford.

 

[Surrealistik]

The report was that no one would take him, not about being accepted but not being able to afford.

Right.

And my argument is that 'no one' refers to a subset of providers; not literally every last provider with the appropriate authority/accreditation, because that would be absurd; neither the kid, his parents, or the courts are going to approach all of them. Moreover, of the providers that weren't consulted, it is extremely likely that, had he the hundreds of thousands/millions to spend that Couch's father did, there would be at least one willing to take him up.

If that is indeed the case, which is highly likely, then money made a material difference in the legal outcome.

In otherwords, it is extremely probable that money was a differentiating factor in terms of legal outcomes, because it is extremely probable that money determined this kid's access to rehabilitation which was necessary for a minimization of his sentence.

 

[Hatuey]

Right.

And my argument is that 'no one' refers to a subset of providers; not literally every last provider with the appropriate authority/accreditation, because that would be absurd; neither the kid, his parents, or the courts are going to approach all of them. Moreover, of the providers that weren't consulted, it is extremely likely that, had he the hundreds of thousands/millions to spend that Couch's father did, there would be at least one willing to take him up.

If that is indeed the case, which is highly likely, then money made a material difference in the legal outcome.

In otherwords, it is extremely probable that money was a differentiating factor in terms of legal outcomes, because it is extremely probable that money determined this kid's access to rehabilitation which was necessary for a minimization of his sentence.

Another time you are correct. Great streak.

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No one denies that disparities exist.

Actually there are those who hold that those are NOT "disparities" - only "normal differences due to different circumstances".

The only question left is why.

TWEET!!
​

20 Cyberyard penalty and loss of Cyberball for "illegal introduction of question no one wants to think about".

 

[Excon]

Right.

And my argument is that 'no one' refers to a subset of providers; not literally every last provider with the appropriate authority/accreditation, because that would be absurd; neither the kid, his parents, or the courts are going to approach all of them. Moreover, of the providers that weren't consulted, it is extremely likely that, had he the hundreds of thousands/millions to spend that Couch's father did, there would be at least one willing to take him up.

If that is indeed the case, which is highly likely, then money made a material difference in the legal outcome.

In otherwords, it is extremely probable that money was a differentiating factor in terms of legal outcomes, because it is extremely probable that money determined this kid's access to rehabilitation which was necessary for a minimization of his sentence.

No. You have no valid argument.

The report was that no one would take him, not about being accepted but not being able to afford.

 

[Surrealistik]

No. You have no valid argument.

The report was that no one would take him, not about being accepted but not being able to afford.

Unsupported opinion noted and discarded.

There is absolutely no way that they were referring to every last provider, including ones that likely would have been consulted in the event this kid had millions to throw around, and surely weren't even thought of given his limited means.