If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOCO Oklahoma City)   Drive while intoxicated and get your 16 year old passenger killed? Ten years....of going to church?   (koco.com) divider line 241
    More: Stupid, Tyler Allred, passengers  
•       •       •

9685 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Nov 2012 at 1:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



241 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-16 11:59:22 PM
A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?
 
2012-11-17 12:06:00 AM

Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?


You restart from zero days completed.
 
2012-11-17 12:22:31 AM
Is this real life?
 
2012-11-17 12:27:29 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.
 
2012-11-17 12:28:16 AM
gonna get raped either way.
 
2012-11-17 12:30:22 AM
Clearly cruel and unusual punishment
 
2012-11-17 12:37:38 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Clearly cruel and unusual punishment


Especially if it's a Catholic church.
 
2012-11-17 12:38:12 AM

ksdanj: Is this real life?


Or is it just fantasy?
 
2012-11-17 12:41:58 AM
Can I get prison instead?
 
2012-11-17 12:44:07 AM

Lorelle: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Clearly cruel and unusual punishment

Especially if it's a Catholic church.


Yeah... I'd rather do time myself
 
2012-11-17 12:44:39 AM

Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.


I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.
 
2012-11-17 12:56:49 AM
What if he wants to be a Rastafarian? would the Judge allow that? I would choose the church of Satan myself.
 
2012-11-17 01:11:07 AM
Don't worry, kid, the state is just establishing church for you. Perfectly Constitutional.
 
2012-11-17 01:26:18 AM

SpikeStrip: gonna get raped either way.


Over in five. Nothing more to see here folks.
 
2012-11-17 01:26:50 AM
Honorable Ardent Parishioner presiding
 
2012-11-17 01:27:10 AM
Wow, just wow.
 
2012-11-17 01:27:25 AM
The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.
 
2012-11-17 01:28:24 AM

Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.


The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.
 
2012-11-17 01:29:12 AM
Santo Daime
 
2012-11-17 01:29:49 AM
It could probably be easily challenged and overturned. But then he gets a jail sentence. He's not challenging the ruling because this means he's basically off scot-free
 
2012-11-17 01:32:04 AM
Of course, sitting him in a pew is much more productive and beneficial than having him do community service or charity work. Thank God they aren't godless commies who believe in things like helping others.
 
2012-11-17 01:35:44 AM

Nofun: I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.


Doesn't matter if he's Christian already. The ruling restricts his freedom to practice his religion as he sees fit, which is the very antithesis of the 1st amendment. All he has to do is miss one Sunday, and he has himself a Supreme Court case (if he doesn't already).
 
2012-11-17 01:37:41 AM
Does he get to choose which church? Because that would be awesome.
 
2012-11-17 01:39:02 AM
If he appeals and wins, his sentence will be thrown out, and then what? A new sentence? Instead of 10 years of church you get 10 years in prison kid, good luck!

I'd suffer through the Sundays if the alternative was prison, whether it be constitutional or not.
 
2012-11-17 01:40:04 AM

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.


The ACLU already made a statement, which boiled down to "Gee, OK...we're all for your religious rights and all, but we're a little disappointed in you." They didn't seem especially upset.
 
2012-11-17 01:41:06 AM
Hrm, how bout that religion some prisoners came up with where they had to be served steak and wine?
 
2012-11-17 01:41:44 AM

jimmyego: Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?

You restart from zero days completed.


Do not anger His Noodleness!!
 
2012-11-17 01:42:25 AM

borg: What if he wants to be a Rastafarian? would the Judge allow that? I would choose the church of Satan myself.


Church of the Norse god of amiable agreement, Hoki Doki.

It preaches not being a dick and sleeping in on Sundays.
 
2012-11-17 01:42:51 AM
As long as they can spell the court documents correctly, it shouldn't be a problem... right?

/[Tencommandments.jpg]
 
2012-11-17 01:43:26 AM
Kid was born White. Lucky lucky.
 
2012-11-17 01:44:41 AM
I think I'd rather just go to prison.
 
2012-11-17 01:46:47 AM

Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.


No it doesn't.

The kid is Christian now. He's been sentenced to go to Christian church for ten years.

I can't sentence an atheist to church. I might sentence them to AA, though, and that's legal even though step two makes dumb people angry.

Just give it up man. Your fake outrage ain't helpin' anyone.
 
2012-11-17 01:46:56 AM
How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.
 
2012-11-17 01:47:22 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Does he get to choose which church? Because that would be awesome.


Yeah, this kid could open up a troll-tastic can of worms if the judge didn't specify. The kid could join the Raëlian Church, for example, and get sexed up with alien cherubim every Sunday.

I look forward to the inevitable Follow-Up.
 
2012-11-17 01:47:47 AM

Lsherm: Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.


A judge can say what he wants. That portion of the sentence wouldn't hold up on appeal. It'll likely just get dismissed, effectively reducing his sentence.
 
2012-11-17 01:48:01 AM

borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.


The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.
 
2012-11-17 01:48:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.


I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

And as for the sentencing - how are you people not horrified that the judicial branch of government compelled a citizen to attend religious services??? The ACLU better be all over this shiat. It's an outrageous abuse of judicial power regardless of your beliefs (or lack of belief), and all the more audacious since the kid won't spend a day in jail for taking another human life in one of the most selfish, irresponsible ways possible.
 
2012-11-17 01:48:30 AM

lousyskater: I think I'd rather just go to prison.


No you would not. If it was a choice between 10 years in prison and 10 years of being drug-free and losing a couple of hours every Sunday going to Church, you'd go there even if you do not believe in what is being said/done there. To say otherwise is b.s.
 
2012-11-17 01:50:56 AM
Glad to see all the Fark lawyers are up and busy working tonight.
 
2012-11-17 01:53:15 AM
Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year. 

Spend a year taking a test and they should supply drugs.
 
2012-11-17 01:53:28 AM

velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!


This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.
 
2012-11-17 01:53:46 AM
So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...
 
2012-11-17 01:55:31 AM
Another quandary: if this kid has to take drug and alcohol tests for the next year, is he therefore restricted to the grape juice communion denominations only?
 
hej
2012-11-17 01:55:32 AM

CuttySupreme: So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...


For everybody who isn't this idiot in TFA? Yes.
 
2012-11-17 02:00:31 AM

buckler: IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.

The ACLU already made a statement, which boiled down to "Gee, OK...we're all for your religious rights and all, but we're a little disappointed in you." They didn't seem especially upset.


Yeah, if you're taking a case to the Supreme Court, this isn't exactly the one you want to go in front of the court with. When an organization like the ACLU wants to take a certain topic in front of the Supreme Court, they wait for a case with the best PR value possible. One that is as hard as possible to rule against. This is... not that case.
 
2012-11-17 02:01:19 AM
Serious response: Well, that's blatantly unconstitutional, and a violation of long-established international human rights to practice one's religion as one sees fit to boot. Who let the guy that failed third-grade civics grow up to be a judge?

Actual Weeners: Well, can't be less effective than AA.
 
2012-11-17 02:03:54 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: lousyskater: I think I'd rather just go to prison.

No you would not. If it was a choice between 10 years in prison and 10 years of being drug-free and losing a couple of hours every Sunday going to Church, you'd go there even if you do not believe in what is being said/done there. To say otherwise is b.s.


PREACH IT, sir!
 
2012-11-17 02:04:40 AM

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.



Why? The teen's attorney's responsibility is to get the kid the best deal possible, not to fret about the separation of church and state.

He could have gotten jail time or 2000 hours of community service. Instead he got 520 hours of church services.
 
2012-11-17 02:05:07 AM
i.ytimg.com

Lemme tell you about what they mean by "Toss Your Salad" in church...
 
2012-11-17 02:05:55 AM

doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.


Less atheist than egoist. I've met an absurd number of people who claimed membership in the Church of Satan and surprise! They were all douchenozzles.

I don't know that I'd prefer prison over legally enforced church attendance, but if the judge was going for a deterrent, it worked on me.
 
2012-11-17 02:07:17 AM

jimmyego: Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?

You restart from zero days completed.


And since Atheism is a religion...WIN!

Or Pastafarianism...
 
2012-11-17 02:10:17 AM

InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.


Going to church does not make one a better person, and it doesn't require responsibility. The major figures behind the world economic collapse were all religious, as were the guys who flew planes into the Twin Towers.
 
2012-11-17 02:11:12 AM
People get sentenced to attending religious services everyday in every state in the US. AA is religious based as is %99 of all 12 step programs. Just try telling a judge you won't attend AA because it's a Christian program. Scientology runs several of the 12 step programs people get sentenced to.
 
2012-11-17 02:11:51 AM

InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.


I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. Yes, vehicular manslaughter is an awful crime. Yes, somebody died. But the "killer" in this case is a kid. He has a chance at this point to turn his life around and remedy the terrible error he made. Is the preferred remedy to destroy his life too? Because, in this day and age, that's what prison will do to him. Even if he were to manage to escape a ten-year prison sentence with his mind and ass intact, a felony conviction condemns him to a life of low-paying unskilled jobs. He can't have a professional license of any type--which includes not only a bar card or a gun license, but even a barber's license. In some states, he'll never be able to vote. He couldn't qualify for student loans, and he'd be barred from a lot of colleges, even if he got his GED in prison. He would be refused bank loans and credit even if he was employed, merely because of the felony, and in a lot of states, he'd have to register as a violent felon, so the cops could keep an eye on him.

So, is that "preferable" to what the judge did? And before anyone asks "Oh, but would you be saying the same thing if he was black?" you bet your daddy's dick I would. I'd rather see this for all juvenile offenders, for any crime less than first-degree murder. I wouldn't necessarily make it church; but I'd definitely make it ten years of community service or until they got full-time employment or acceptance into college or voluntary entry into the military. I would much prefer a young offender was sentenced to ten years of establishing ties to the community, education, and enforced drug testing; instead of learning criminal behavior and establishing a record that ensures nothing but a future of low-paying unskilled jobs and more petty crime.

I think this judge actually showed some common sense for a change. I know it's shocking to see. But I think he was right.
 
2012-11-17 02:11:52 AM
Does he have an alternative to church such as psychology counseling?

The reason why I ask, since that some churches see themselves as alternatives to counseling, especially ones that espouses Biblical Counseling Movement (BCM)

/ BCM seems to be pretty harmful. The common concept in the movement is that there is no mental illnesses, only guilt, sin, possessment, etc...
 
2012-11-17 02:14:14 AM

Gyrfalcon: InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.

I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. ...


I agree except I think 10 years of community service would have been a better way to go about it. 10 years of benefiting others seems a better way to go and doesn't violate the Constitution.
 
2012-11-17 02:15:36 AM
Want to be outraged but the judge pretty much gave the kid a chance to have a life. It's either this or send him to jail for ten years where he gets to be a repeat offender as he would have no education and a man slaughter charge on his record.
 
2012-11-17 02:17:18 AM
Who wants to bet his parents have been dragging him to church his whole life and therefore he doesn't see this as a big deal anyway?
 
2012-11-17 02:19:25 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.


Lolwut?
 
2012-11-17 02:20:56 AM
Can we at least send his parents to prison for a little while?
 
2012-11-17 02:22:09 AM

CuttySupreme: So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...


I'd much rather he do community service in some way, something useful with his time that is also beneficial to his community, anything rather than church.

/who wants to bet he and the judge belong to the same one?
 
2012-11-17 02:22:39 AM

Gyrfalcon: InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.

I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. ...


I have a problem with it because what would the judge do if the kid was an atheist, sure the kid s a good upstanding citizen who happened to get drunk and drive but sure he's a christen so let's double down with that. Sorry, I don't think laws should ruins kids lives for stupid stuff but this just seems wrong.
 
2012-11-17 02:24:00 AM

EggSniper: Can we at least send his parents to prison for a little while?


I'm okay with this outcome as well.
 
2012-11-17 02:26:43 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


It's likely to make sure he's staying involved in a "good" group and such. I see this along the lines of a judge ordering someone to hold the "I'm an idiot" signs. You can take the unusual sentence or appeal it as cruel and unusual then get the prison time instead. This kid got off easy and is getting a second chance. They could have easily thrown the book at him, tried him as an adult, and ruined the rest of his life while bankrupting his family trying to defend him.

That's the difference between a nicer judge vs one with a stick up their ass.
 
2012-11-17 02:28:27 AM
This manages to simultaneously be a horrible ruling for two separate reasons; first, it's giving someone guilty of homicide a trivial punishment AND it's giving him a punishment that violates the 1st and 8th amendment. Damn, that judge sucks.

thatboyoverthere: Want to be outraged but the judge pretty much gave the kid a chance to have a life. It's either this or send him to jail for ten years where he gets to be a repeat offender as he would have no education and a man slaughter charge on his record.


He farking killed someone while driving drunk. Ten years might be a little much, but no jail time is pretty far from justice as well.Two years seems fair - he sees a serious consequence to his actions while not permanently ruining his life.
 
2012-11-17 02:29:59 AM
once a county psych (the guy who sees people who can't afford to see anyone else) told me that i have to start going to church and if i don't then i'll no longer be able to receive treatment (from the public county mental health services). the letter i wrote to the Superiors in the system became legendary, and even a few years later in a totally different corner of the county mental health establishment i heard "you're the guy who wrote that letter!" from a few people.

texas - still slightly less bad than oklahoma. go texas!

The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

dude, this guy has a license to practice law? bad oklahoma, bad.
 
2012-11-17 02:36:03 AM
the801:
dude, this guy has a license to practice law? bad oklahoma, bad./i>

He's not gonna challenge it because it's a much lighter sentence than the offense calls for. The judge was counting on that - you can only pull this kind of unconstitutional bullshiat if you know it isn't gonna get challenged.
 
2012-11-17 02:36:51 AM
Not that I'm condoning the bad behavior, but I'd love to see the kid go to a Buddhist temple or some other non-christian religious service instead, and watch the judge stew.

I understand that it's a probationary condition, and as such isn't technically a 'punishment'. The judge could have sentenced him to 10 years of watching back episodes of 60 Minutes if he wanted.
 
2012-11-17 02:36:52 AM
I'm sure the parents of the victim can rest easy knowing this guy is going to be slightly inconvenienced for a few hours a week for killing their son.
 
2012-11-17 02:36:55 AM
I wonder if he can be compelled to tithe. Because presumably some churches wouldn't want a free-loading member. Sure, 10 years and he's a captive audience, they stand a good chance of converting him--well at least, they couldn't ask for a better chance. But he might draw the wrong kind of attention (not all churches are into welcoming the down-trodden and have a reputation to uphold), and if he's not contributing financially, would the church necessarily want to invest 10 years for just one saved person?

Also, it says he can go to the church of his choosing. I am assuming he could go to a synagogue, as well, and I know some that make you pay up front for the year. Then there's the Church of Scientology. That can get up to into the millions of dollars--especially if you last 10 years in it. If I were the kid, I'd join Scientology to screw with the judge. I'm guessing he could send the judge the bill? Plus, he could learn all the skills needed to utterly ruin the judge.
 
2012-11-17 02:40:35 AM
Gyrfalcon:The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.


It's not your job to make him a felon, he did that himself when he killed someone by his own conscious action. And your "I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anyone, but..." sounds exactly like someone saying "I have no problem with black people, but..." and, just as with the latter opening, you go on to contradict your opening statement. Have you taken responsibility for anything you've ever done? I think there's something wrong with your brain.
 
2012-11-17 02:43:37 AM
Is he allowed to sleep through the sermons?
 
2012-11-17 02:47:44 AM

akede: That's the difference between a nicer judge


It's not the judge's job to be nice though.
 
2012-11-17 02:47:53 AM

9Speed: Is he allowed to sleep through the sermons?


The My Little Pony Killer: CuttySupreme: So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...

I'd much rather he do community service in some way, something useful with his time that is also beneficial to his community, anything rather than church.

/who wants to bet he and the judge belong to the same one?


There's a very good chance that the judge is also the pastor/reverend of said church.
 
2012-11-17 02:53:58 AM

Phoenix_M: People get sentenced to attending religious services everyday in every state in the US. AA is religious based as is %99 of all 12 step programs. Just try telling a judge you won't attend AA because it's a Christian program. Scientology runs several of the 12 step programs people get sentenced to.


Many people do challenge the AA requirement due to religious grounds. The problem is that unless you live in a major city - there are no viable secular alternatives.

/AA is a cult as far as I'm concerned
 
2012-11-17 02:56:05 AM

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.


If I got 10 years of church instead of 10 years in prison and my attorney tried to fight it, I would tell him to STFU and fire him. If the ACLU tried to get involved, I would tell them to GTFO as well. Look at the alternative,yeesh.
 
2012-11-17 02:57:41 AM
Hate speech and bigotry thread, yeah fark.
 
2012-11-17 02:59:59 AM
Send that f*cker to the Metal Church
 
2012-11-17 03:02:53 AM

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.


Sure. The kid can easily sue, and win. But if he wins, that means he goes to jail for several years, instead.

Think he will sue?
 
2012-11-17 03:03:14 AM
Not sure how it works in the USA, but here in Australia parties can make submissions as to appropriate punishments at the sentencing hearing. Before everyone gets their panties in a knot about separation of church and state, it was probably the boy's own counsel who suggested the church punishment. I might be wrong though if you guys do things differently over there.
 
2012-11-17 03:04:53 AM
Love how harsh sentencing causes outrage. And mercy causes outrage.

But then, FARK's meme-infused denizens are CONVINCED they're above all think-of-the-children hysteria.
 
2012-11-17 03:07:35 AM
Ya wanna know why he ain't goin to jail? The jail is full. The judge knows that cuz he filled it. Ya wanna guess what it's full of? Poor white kid can't go there.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-17 03:08:04 AM

CuttySupreme: So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...


No, more just. He killed someone because of his actions. This is not justice. This is a slap on the wrist.
 
2012-11-17 03:08:27 AM

Nofun: The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)?


The fact that it specifies going on Sunday should give you a hint.
 
2012-11-17 03:08:44 AM
At least he didn't end up like that one Kennedy guy and end up being stuck with several terms in a Senate seat.
 
2012-11-17 03:09:58 AM

fusillade762: Nofun: The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)?

The fact that it specifies going on Sunday should give you a hint.


Haha. I just realized... if he chooses 7th day adventists for his church, he can go every sunday, see that the doors are locked, and go home.
 
2012-11-17 03:12:09 AM
So.... from murderer to child molester, is this what they're going for?
 
2012-11-17 03:13:50 AM

RatMaster999: jimmyego: Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?

You restart from zero days completed.

And since Atheism is a religion...WIN!


Monsieur Trole, is that you?
 
2012-11-17 03:14:43 AM

david_gaithersburg: Hate speech and bigotry thread, yeah fark.


Sayeth the biggest racist on Fark.
 
2012-11-17 03:16:13 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Who wants to bet his parents have been dragging him to church his whole life and therefore he doesn't see this as a big deal anyway?


Oh I do. And I'm also willing to bet that he was "saved" and "forgiven" just like the violent felons Mike Huckabee pardoned as governor.
 
2012-11-17 03:17:54 AM

harm dealer: Not sure how it works in the USA, but here in Australia parties can make submissions as to appropriate punishments at the sentencing hearing. Before everyone gets their panties in a knot about separation of church and state, it was probably the boy's own counsel who suggested the church punishment. I might be wrong though if you guys do things differently over there.


Here's the difficulty: it's Oklahoma, the same state that we were just talking about, mere hours ago, that took three years to place a misspelled tenn commandments monument in front of one of it's county court houses.

In the states, most of our crimes have minimum sentences, which, in some cases, is total horseshiat. The opposing counsels usually come to an agreement as to the sentence should the defendant plead out. If it goes to jury, the jury is asked to make a reasonable offer, and the judge alters it as he sees fit.

Still no excuse for this travesty of justice, though.
 
2012-11-17 03:23:42 AM

SpikeStrip: gonna get raped either way.


Yep, either way he'll be on his knees praying for Jesus to come already.


/yes, I stole that joke
//and I'm not going to church for it
 
2012-11-17 03:34:50 AM

Nofun: I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society.


Bullsh*t.

No, seriously, bullsh*t. What would have benefitted society? 10 years of forcing this kid to work clean-up in a f*cking trauma ward at a hospital. You REALLY WANT to have this kid turn his life around? Make him realize what he did, instead of giving him a pass to say "this was God's will!"
 
2012-11-17 03:36:13 AM

velvet_fog: No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.


Yeah, something stinks about this. Actually, a lot stinks about this.

I'm no pitchfork/torches type on crime and punishment, but I'd like to see any precedent they have in Oklahoma for similar crimes/sentences. Where is the judge getting this from?

Is the kid connected? The story gives no details at all, there's no story on the web about the accident, unnamed victim....

My bullshiat meter says something is awry.
 
2012-11-17 03:36:25 AM
Imagine the outrage if he'd ordered the kid to pray towards Mecca five times a day.
 
2012-11-17 03:36:46 AM
The judge is letting his prejudice show. As far as the "maintaining ties with the community" shtick I've seen bandied about here, there are likely better ways to maintain ties and help the community. Not to mention a vast majority of the community isn't likely to attend the chosen, or any, church. I think the judge should have gone truly biblical, eye for an eye and all that.
 
2012-11-17 03:37:14 AM

velvet_fog:
And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkIN ...


I don't know, he was under the legal limit - you know that limit where they decide you are actually impaired. He got manslaughter because if you have a mouthwash quantity of alcohol on your breath it still counts of manslaughter. So I would like to see some numbers before crucifying a farking kid.
 
2012-11-17 03:38:42 AM
Every iteration of this story is nearly identical, providing no details.

Oklahoma city is not a small town.

Something ain't right.
 
2012-11-17 03:39:16 AM

Gyrfalcon: I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid


And I have to laugh when someone refers to a 17-year-old as a "kid," as if a 17-year-old is just learning how to change his or her own pants.
 
2012-11-17 03:40:18 AM
I don't know where people are getting this idea that he will be subjected to ten years of drug and booze tests. According to TFA, it says ONE year.

I would pass that year, and then the first Sunday after that I'd find a nice quiet seat in the back and sit there, completely wrecked.
 
2012-11-17 03:41:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder


Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.
 
2012-11-17 03:43:33 AM

Gunther: This manages to simultaneously be a horrible ruling for two separate reasons; first, it's giving someone guilty of homicide a trivial punishment AND it's giving him a punishment that violates the 1st and 8th amendment. Damn, that judge sucks.

thatboyoverthere: Want to be outraged but the judge pretty much gave the kid a chance to have a life. It's either this or send him to jail for ten years where he gets to be a repeat offender as he would have no education and a man slaughter charge on his record.

He farking killed someone while driving drunk. Ten years might be a little much, but no jail time is pretty far from justice as well.Two years seems fair - he sees a serious consequence to his actions while not permanently ruining his life.


The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt? We aren't talking about some sociopath here but about a person who just lost a friend because of his own actions. His life is already ruined.
 
2012-11-17 03:44:36 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


Because alcohol is cool!
 
2012-11-17 03:46:13 AM
I think it would be better for the kid and the community if he was given a massive amount of community service instead. You don't really have to reflect on what you did in church for an hour once a week but spend 10 years worth of Sundays picking up trash on the roadside or preparing meals for the homeless gives you an opportunity to reflect on your life and the world around you.
 
2012-11-17 03:48:20 AM
Seriously, though I believe for murder you deserve to be "locked up" (not necessarily in PMITA prison but something), I'd have been fine with 10 years of heavy, daily community service. Again, put him in a trauma hospital, or cleanup crew for accident or crime scenes, or something of that nature. Really, REALLY make him think about his actions.
 
2012-11-17 03:52:56 AM

DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?


Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?
 
2012-11-17 03:55:32 AM
The kid should move to Massachusetts and run for the Senate.
 
2012-11-17 03:55:43 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?

Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?


How about the fact that if the same thing had happened a few months later it wouldn't have even been a crime?
 
2012-11-17 04:08:18 AM
More from the American Taliban.
 
2012-11-17 04:15:02 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


Murder requires intent.
 
2012-11-17 04:24:33 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt?

Are you goddamned serious? You think the penalty for killing someone while driving drunk should be a guilty conscience?

I suppose the penalty for rape in your world is a stern lecture? First degree murder gets you twenty minutes in the naughty chair?


Yep, that is exactly what I said and also what I meant. But just to clarify, the stern lecture is on the finer points of modesty. If (s)he wasn't dressed like a whore nobody would even consider rape.

/The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone
///16 year old dude could have taken a cab
//If 16 y.o. Dude got hit by a drunk stranger things would be different
 
2012-11-17 04:31:22 AM
If you want to send the kid somewhere that will help him, force him to go to counseling for the next 8-10 years. Even disregarding the 1st Amendment issue, at least there he will talk to someone who has the training to connect with him and help him change instead of just giving him detention for an hour or two on Sundays.
 
2012-11-17 04:32:07 AM
Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'
 
2012-11-17 04:32:48 AM
Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.
 
2012-11-17 04:36:03 AM

vrax: Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.


Yes it is, and the word soup "paragraph" that preceded it wasn't any better.
 
2012-11-17 04:36:08 AM

Securitywyrm: Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'


Just say that Jesus was driving. That has to get you off in these areas. I mean, are they going to deny Jesus? Hell, just say that you were driving, but Jesus turned your water into wine. That cheeky farker!
 
2012-11-17 04:39:23 AM

MrHappyRotter: vrax: Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.

Yes it is, and the word soup "paragraph" that preceded it wasn't any better.


Man, I was just asking for that, wasn't I?
 
2012-11-17 04:44:11 AM
Honestly, all this kid's (using that word because it's the word I use for damn near everybody, nothing to do with age) going to get from 10 years in church is a sore ass and bad knees.

/from the wooden pews and kneelers, you sick farks.

Sitting in church isn't going to do jack for the community other than let the other snot-nosed punks see that they can do stupid shiat without any major consequences, even if their actions cause a death. Make the bastard work for ir.
 
2012-11-17 04:47:07 AM

doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.


Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.
 
2012-11-17 04:53:40 AM

SurfaceTension: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.


Except that "The Church of Satan" IS an obstinately atheist organization.

Link 

But you know, you've been wrong about everything else so far in the thread. Best not to have a c-c-c-combo breaker moment and just keep your streak alive.
 
2012-11-17 04:59:02 AM

DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone


Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.
 
2012-11-17 04:59:28 AM

velvet_fog: Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.

I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkIN ...


you sound overly concerned.
Get over it.
 
2012-11-17 05:01:37 AM

Securitywyrm: Hmm. I went to church every week for about 10 years and graduated high school already. Does that mean I can get drunk and get my passenger killed and be released for 'time served?'


check the color of your skin first. some of those judges get real testy when the coloreds start gettin 'uppity'
 
2012-11-17 05:06:16 AM

Gyrfalcon: InitialCommentGuy: velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.

I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. ...


This is exactly how I feel about the situation.

I am sure the kid is thinking this is ok too.


//Probably for different reasons.
 
2012-11-17 05:08:11 AM

doglover: SurfaceTension: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Actually, Satan is part of the Judeo-Christian mythology, so it is hardly an Atheist organization.

Except that "The Church of Satan" IS an obstinately atheist organization.

Link 

But you know, you've been wrong about everything else so far in the thread. Best not to have a c-c-c-combo breaker moment and just keep your streak alive.


Well I guess I was wrong. That sounds pretty cool actually. And their high priest and I share the same last name. Even better. Thanks for filling the gap in my knowledge.

You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?

/eip if you want to discuss offline
 
2012-11-17 05:10:59 AM

WorldCitizen: I agree except I think 10 years of community service would have been a better way to go about it. 10 years of benefiting others seems a better way to go and doesn't violate the Constitution.


This. So much this. Religion in no way, shape or form should be involved in court sentencing. You feel he should have a way to turn his life around and make him a benefit to society? Fine. Have him spend it helping people rather than sitting on his ass in a church every Sunday - which in no way even comes close to attempting to make up his debt to society.
 
2012-11-17 05:14:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. Yes, vehicular manslaughter is an awful crime. Yes, somebody died. But the "killer" in this case is a kid. He has a chance at this point to turn his life around and remedy the terrible error he made.


Little chestnut. Whats the difference morally between getting drunk, driving and almost hitting someone, and actually running them over? Seems the major difference between Mr served time for manslaughter and Mr has a good story is pure luck.
 
2012-11-17 05:17:34 AM
What if he wants to convert to Judaism or Islam?
If goes on Sunday and Wednesday, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he converts to Judaism and Islam, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he is devoutly Islamic praying 5 times a day or can find a Catholic church still saying mass every day, can he cut it down to 18 months?
What if he completes seminary?
Does the Slacker church have services?
Can't he form his own religion?
 
2012-11-17 05:24:26 AM
Did the terms specify if he had to stay awake?
Sleeping in the pew for the win! Bring along an Ipod and a lounge chair. Maybe a cooler with some beverages and snacks?
 
2012-11-17 05:25:14 AM

ISO15693: fusillade762: Nofun: The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)?

The fact that it specifies going on Sunday should give you a hint.

Haha. I just realized... if he chooses 7th day adventists for his church, he can go every sunday, see that the doors are locked, and go home.


Ohhh, that's not true. Seventh Day Adventist churches are pretty easy going in regards to their physical real estate. A smaller church will use the church of another friendly denomination - which will be open on Sunday - to do its own service. Larger Seventh Day Adventist churches often have another denomination use their churches on Sunday as well. In my observation, its normally foreign language services for immigrants, but nonetheless there is still a Christian church service all weekend long.
 
2012-11-17 05:25:43 AM
Ok real question time.

Your kid had a beer drove home killed his friend due to a squirrel in the road or some shiat. Does he deserve 10 years of prison? Do you think if his lawyer got the Judge to commit him to 10 years of Church/Community service/Psychiatric counseling you wouldn't take it in a heart beat?

//Just because you don't have faith does not mean that others don't.

//Give the kid the benefit of the doubt there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.
 
2012-11-17 05:27:45 AM

yousaywut: there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.


[welcometofark.jpg]
 
2012-11-17 05:29:06 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


You can't stand atheists? I can't stand superstitious idiots.
 
2012-11-17 05:29:48 AM

ruta: Another quandary: if this kid has to take drug and alcohol tests for the next year, is he therefore restricted to the grape juice communion denominations only?


A nice glass of orange juice will put you at 0.004 or so. I had person refused admittance to the Victim's Impact Panel because of such a test. I had to get a toxicologist's affidavit. I think most any fruit juice will work.
 
2012-11-17 05:30:03 AM

SurfaceTension: You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?


The sky is azure, but people call it sky blue.
 
2012-11-17 05:36:55 AM

starsrift: yousaywut: there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.

[welcometofark.jpg]


true
 
2012-11-17 05:37:38 AM

doglover: SurfaceTension: You sound like an awfully angry person. What's up with that?

The sky is azure, but people call it sky blue.


funnied
 
2012-11-17 05:37:56 AM

snark puppet: The kid should move to Massachusetts and run for the Senate.


Or move to Texas and become First Lady.
 
2012-11-17 05:41:31 AM
I can't imagine the levels of condescension he will experience in the lion's den of judgement. Excuse me, I don't really know anything about this chuch... I'm just thinking of every single practicing religious person i've ever encountered.
 
2012-11-17 05:51:32 AM

Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.


Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.
 
2012-11-17 05:57:42 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone

Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.


If you really can't see the difference between someone being in an accident (while having less than the legally allowed amount of alcohol in his blood) with a lethal consequence and someone beating his wife to death, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it. Feeling guilty does not excuse most crimes, but here? There was no intent, there was no malice, nothing. Just a stupid accident. Feeling guilty because your friend died in an accident should be all the punishment required. Even the family of the guy who died don't want him in jail.
 
2012-11-17 05:58:46 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.


So if he had gotten into a car accident and killed his 16-year-old passenger and he was totally sober what should the sentence be?

Because you don't cause a fatal accident without doing something really horrible like running a red light or entering a curve at way too high a rate of speed or driving into opposing lanes of traffic or something along those lines.

The article doesn't say how drunk he was or how the accident played out. You just want to hang someone because OMG they drove after having a drink.
 
2012-11-17 06:09:17 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


From another article: Alred was under the state's legal alcohol limit

It seems that alcohol was not the determining factor in this accident. More than likely being a stupid 16 year old who just got his license and was an inexperienced driver was. 

You're just another neo-prohibitionist.
 
2012-11-17 06:18:10 AM
Is he a Kennedy?
 
2012-11-17 06:26:37 AM
Church of Satan.
 
2012-11-17 06:39:00 AM

DerAppie: The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it.


In 1972, 55,000 Americans died in car accidents. Last year, that number was more like 30,000, despite there being far, far more cars on the road. What changed? well, for one thing, we're a little better at treating the sort of injuries you get in a car accident. For another, modern cars are a little safer.

But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.

This guy got a 16 year old killed through his own negligence. He is a criminal. Treating him like a criminal will help save lives.
 
2012-11-17 06:43:43 AM

Gunther: DerAppie: The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it.

In 1972, 55,000 Americans died in car accidents. Last year, that number was more like 30,000, despite there being far, far more cars on the road. What changed? well, for one thing, we're a little better at treating the sort of injuries you get in a car accident. For another, modern cars are a little safer.

But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.

This guy got a 16 year old killed through his own negligence. He is a criminal. Treating him like a criminal will help save lives.


He was under the legal limit. The victim's own family supported the defendant in court. You also do not know anything about what contributed to the crash. Saying that the defendant should have his life ruined when you do not even know the specifics of the incident is just a knee-jerk reaction.
 
2012-11-17 06:50:11 AM

DerAppie: Gunther: DerAppie: /The guy is already being punished
//ruining another life really doesn't help anyone

Again, that line of "reasoning" would lead you to not punish anyone who felt guilty over their crime. Abusive husband beat his wife to death? Well, he seems pretty broken up over it, so I guess we'll let him off with a warning.

If you really can't see the difference between someone being in an accident (while having less than the legally allowed amount of alcohol in his blood) with a lethal consequence and someone beating his wife to death, then I truly feel sorry for you.

The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident.


I cannot agree that driving while intoxicated and killing someone is an "unfortunate accident".

Just because you are under the legal limit does not mean you were not impaired. Everyone reacts differently to alcohol, and unless this teen was drinking regularly already, it's not likely his tolerance was very high. The legal limit only means that you will automatically be charged with a DUI after that point. It does not mean you cannot be convicted if you are driving while still beneath it. It means it has to be proved that you driving abilities were impacted by the alcohol.
 
2012-11-17 06:52:55 AM

Gunther: But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.


Do you really believe that? Attitudes towards drunk driving have certainly gotten more serious, but it wasn't a joke before MADD either.

People drive irresponsibly all the time and it is treated like a joke. You run a red light? You're probably not going to get caught and if you do you get a very minor ticket and you're allowed to keep on driving. Meanwhile this kid wasn't even over the legal limit and people want him to spend years in prison - not because he did something stupid while driving but because he had a couple of drinks which did NOT even put him over the legal limit before he drove.

This article and another one I read about the incident didn't even explain how he crashed. But by golly we know he had a couple of drinks and that's what killed his passenger. If he hadn't had anything to drink and he had done the same thing to cause the accident we'd all be wringing our hands and saying what a shame it was that this good boy's friend was killed in an accident.

It's time to stop that. If you get behind the wheel and drive like an idiot you should be charged criminally - not some measly civil citation as most traffic tickets are. You run a red light? That's gotta be a misdemeanor with possible jail time. Failure to yield the right of way? Same thing. Even speeding should be on the table and I say that as someone who sometimes exceeds the speed limit. Maybe keep the first 10 over the limit as a minor traffic infraction, but if you creep up into 15-20-25 mph over the speed limit? That's intent right there. You know you're speeding when you violate the law by that much and it should be treated as a crime.

That would be a "change in attitude". Making it harder to get a driver's license would be a "change in attitude". This hard-on you and MADD get for people with a teeny bit of alcohol in their blood when they drive is nothing but a revival of the temperance movement.
 
2012-11-17 06:55:36 AM

Happy Hours: Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.


Beneficial? Are you serious? Beneficial to whom? Taxpayers, because they don't have to pay for his room and board? The kid, because he's getting off easy for utilizing a complete lack of judgement resulting in the death of another person?

Teach him public speaking and have him talk to other teens about underage drinking or have him give talks in drivers ed classes about using good judgement, have him play with abused kids at a child crisis center, converse with or read to patients at a hospital or elderly care facility, serve food at a homeless shelters, pick up garbage on the side of the freeway etc. You could come up with any number of activities that would be far, far more beneficial to the community and to him than having him sit and twiddle his thumbs in church for an hour or two a week.

This "punishment" isn't beneficial to anyone... it's a lazy, ineffectual, feel-good judgement and it's absolute crap.
 
2012-11-17 06:59:23 AM

omnimancer28: Gunther: DerAppie: The only crime committed here was under age drinking. The rest was just an unfortunate accident. He does not, I repeat, not deserve to have his life ruined over it.

In 1972, 55,000 Americans died in car accidents. Last year, that number was more like 30,000, despite there being far, far more cars on the road. What changed? well, for one thing, we're a little better at treating the sort of injuries you get in a car accident. For another, modern cars are a little safer.

But the main difference is the change in attitude people have towards irresponsible driving. You treat it like a crime, you change societal attitudes towards it it and you freakin' punish people severely for it and you save thousands of lives a year.

This guy got a 16 year old killed through his own negligence. He is a criminal. Treating him like a criminal will help save lives.

He was under the legal limit. The victim's own family supported the defendant in court. You also do not know anything about what contributed to the crash. Saying that the defendant should have his life ruined when you do not even know the specifics of the incident is just a knee-jerk reaction.


Should this kid have his life ruined? Probably not. He made a huge mistake that he'll never get to fix. But is sentencing him to church the proper response, either? Have him do community service, join organizations that raise awareness on drunk driving or something like that.
 
2012-11-17 07:06:24 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


The kid was a bonehead and as a result, got his friend killed. Other than that one act of stupidity, he may have been a pretty good kid. Would you prefer he spend the first ten years of his adulthood behind bars amongst hardened career criminals? I'm guessing is what this kid received was a form of probation for the next ten years where he will be checking in with his "probation" officers as well as receiving counseling all in one shot. Seems like a violation of those terms, as agreed on by the prosecution, will land this kid's butt in big boy jail.

The real outrage- I'm predicting without reading the through the thread-- will be that he will have to serve his federally mandated sentence in a religious oriented community. A blend of church and state which is clearly forbidden by Constitutional Ammendmant, right?

I respectfully disagree. The decision to send the offender to church was based on which facility they believed the boy would receive the best treatment for his offense. In this instance, that orginization happened have a religious componant to it. Christian/religion orientated schools have a high demographic of non-christian/religious participants- as do many christian or religious based medical facilities-- but not for the religious componant of these organizations, but rather the quality of services of which they offer. His sentence was not to find God or turn Catholic as that would clearly have been a government endorsement of religion, but rather to be placed amongst peers who would serve as role models of positive behavior (regardless of the Fark community's feelings on the moral behavior of the religious right).
 
2012-11-17 07:07:11 AM

DerAppie: The guy is already being punished


Aw poor killer has hurty feewings. Shall I bring him a glass of warm milk?

So if I kill someone but feel really bad about it, I shouldn't have to go to prison? Or does that only work if I was voluntarily impaired? So I should get drunk before I kill someone, and feel bad about it, and then it's okay? I get a pat on the head and sent home?

I have never understood why being impaired is an excuse for a lighter sentence because the criminal "didn't know what they were doing". biatch, you CHOSE to make yourself that way, you know the effect it has on you. Impaired people should get a heavier sentence for choosing the increase the likelihood that they'll do something stupid and hurt someone.
 
2012-11-17 07:08:35 AM

Relatively Obscure: ksdanj: Is this real life?

Or is it just fantasy?


Better than being caught in a landslide with no escape from reality.
 
2012-11-17 07:09:19 AM
The Lord works in mysterious ways. He called one home and is working on the other one. Everything happens for a reason.
 
2012-11-17 07:11:35 AM

omnimancer28: Saying that the defendant should have his life ruined


Two years in jail is not life-ruining, and that was the example I gave of a fair sentence for this.

Happy Hours: Do you really believe that? Attitudes towards drunk driving have certainly gotten more serious, but it wasn't a joke before MADD either.


It damn well was. In the 80s I can remember people treating drunk driving about as seriously as they treated jaywalking. If you tried to take the keys off a drunk friend everyone would have thought you were an asshole. MADD have done a hell of a lot of things I disagree with and have an attitude towards civil liberties that can best be described as contemptuous, but by changing social attitudes about drink driving, they and other groups like them have saved a lot of lives.

Happy Hours: This article and another one I read about the incident didn't even explain how he crashed. But by golly we know he had a couple of drinks and that's what killed his passenger


A jury convicted him of manslaughter. Clearly those idiots don't know the specifics of the case as well as you, though.
 
2012-11-17 07:14:01 AM

9Speed: Happy Hours: Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.

Beneficial? Are you serious? Beneficial to whom? Taxpayers, because they don't have to pay for his room and board? The kid, because he's getting off easy for utilizing a complete lack of judgement resulting in the death of another person?

Teach him public speaking and have him talk to other teens about underage drinking or have him give talks in drivers ed classes about using good judgement, have him play with abused kids at a child crisis center, converse with or read to patients at a hospital or elderly care facility, serve food at a homeless shelters, pick up garbage on the side of the freeway etc. You could come up with any number of activities that would be far, far more beneficial to the community and to him than having him sit and twiddle his thumbs in church for an hour or two a week.

This "punishment" isn't beneficial to anyone... it's a lazy, ineffectual, feel-good judgement and it's absolute crap.


Yes, this sentence is more beneficial to taxpayers and it is more beneficial to the defendant. Did I stutter?

Could the community benefit from having him speak to underage teens? Yes, but not if the focus is on booze. They get plenty of that already. I still haven't found very many details about the accident, but it does seem that his "victim" was not wearing a seat belt. I haven't seen that explicitly stated, but I've seen several articles saying his "victim" was thrown from the vehicle and seat belts usually prevent that.

Did he do wrong? Yes, but DUI isn't the crime of the century that you and MADD want to make it out to be. He wasn't even drunk. He was 16 years old at the time of the accident. He'd probably only been driving for a few months and he probably thought he was a great driver and could go fast, run red lights and take curves at dangerous speeds without consequence. Why is there no focus on what caused the accident? Instead everyone seems focused on the fact that he had a couple of drinks first. [sarcasm]And as everyone knows, any alcohol before driving will result in highway carnage [/end sarcasm] 

You think this guy hasn't had a hammer drop on his head for what he did already? His friend is dead. He got arrested. He has a record. He had to go to court. He has a 10 year probation obligation that he has to comply with or face prison if he doesn't.

Will he learn his lesson? I think so, but it's not a certainty. I don't think sending him to prison would do anything except costing taxpayers a shiat-ton of money and insuring he didn't repeat his mistake for as long as he was behind bars.
 
2012-11-17 07:16:14 AM

clowncar on fire: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

The kid was a bonehead and as a result, got his friend killed. Other than that one act of stupidity, he may have been a pretty good kid. Would you prefer he spend the first ten years of his adulthood behind bars amongst hardened career criminals? I'm guessing is what this kid received was a form of probation for the next ten years where he will be checking in with his "probation" officers as well as receiving counseling all in one shot. Seems like a violation of those terms, as agreed on by the prosecution, will land this kid's butt in big boy jail.

The real outrage- I'm predicting without reading the through the thread-- will be that he will have to serve his federally mandated sentence in a religious oriented community. A blend of church and state which is clearly forbidden by Constitutional Ammendmant, right?

I respectfully disagree. The decision to send the offender to church was based on which facility they believed the boy would receive the best treatment for his offense. In this instance, that orginization happened have a religious componant to it. Christian/religion orientated schools have a high demographic of non-christian/religious participants- as do many christian or religious based medical facilities-- but not for the religious componant of these organizations, but rather the quality of services of which they offer ...


Where did you get the information that he would be sent to a religious facility for treatment? According to the link, not that I take everything said in the news without a grain of salt, he was sentenced to attend church on Sundays so that he could "pray for forgiveness". Didn't mention anything about attending treatment at the church... sounds to me like the religious component was the primary reason for this sentencing.
 
2012-11-17 07:17:03 AM

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.


A good attorney gets his client the ligtest, fairest sentence possible- would you rather the kid be sent to jail?
Why would the ACLU be all over this? Everyone seems to be rather agreeable about the whole thing. Maybe a case id the church was later found to be "indoctrinating " the boy against his own religious morales, or that the boy was somehow physically or mentally abused (unlike within the safe confines of an religion-free penetentary)

Seems the only ones who have any real issue with the court's decision are those who could probably be best serving their time herp-de-derping in the politics tab on the hurr-durr of whargarbl.
 
2012-11-17 07:19:39 AM

clowncar on fire: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

The kid was a bonehead and as a result, got his friend killed. Other than that one act of stupidity, he may have been a pretty good kid. Would you prefer he spend the first ten years of his adulthood behind bars amongst hardened career criminals? I'm guessing is what this kid received was a form of probation for the next ten years where he will be checking in with his "probation" officers as well as receiving counseling all in one shot. Seems like a violation of those terms, as agreed on by the prosecution, will land this kid's butt in big boy jail.

The real outrage- I'm predicting without reading the through the thread-- will be that he will have to serve his federally mandated sentence in a religious oriented community. A blend of church and state which is clearly forbidden by Constitutional Ammendmant, right?

I respectfully disagree. The decision to send the offender to church was based on which facility they believed the boy would receive the best treatment for his offense. In this instance, that orginization happened have a religious componant to it. Christian/religion orientated schools have a high demographic of non-christian/religious participants- as do many christian or religious based medical facilities-- but not for the religious componant of these organizations, but rather the quality of services of which they offer ...


I also must respectfully disagree. I'm not going to lie, the blurring of the line between Church and State in this case does bother me a great deal, as I see it setting a dangerous precedent. However, there's also this to consider: this person was convicted and now has a debt to society. I don't think he deserves to have his life ruined in prison because of it, based on what I know. But how is going to church once a week repaying that debt? This is the part I cannot understand.
 
2012-11-17 07:26:06 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Can I get prison instead?


As a FARK atheist I would demand it.
 
2012-11-17 07:27:09 AM

9Speed: clowncar on fire: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

The kid was a bonehead and as a result, got his friend killed. Other than that one act of stupidity, he may have been a pretty good kid. Would you prefer he spend the first ten years of his adulthood behind bars amongst hardened career criminals? I'm guessing is what this kid received was a form of probation for the next ten years where he will be checking in with his "probation" officers as well as receiving counseling all in one shot. Seems like a violation of those terms, as agreed on by the prosecution, will land this kid's butt in big boy jail.

The real outrage- I'm predicting without reading the through the thread-- will be that he will have to serve his federally mandated sentence in a religious oriented community. A blend of church and state which is clearly forbidden by Constitutional Ammendmant, right?

I respectfully disagree. The decision to send the offender to church was based on which facility they believed the boy would receive the best treatment for his offense. In this instance, that orginization happened have a religious componant to it. Christian/religion orientated schools have a high demographic of non-christian/religious participants- as do many christian or religious based medical facilities-- but not for the religious componant of these organizations, but rather the quality of services o ...


Last I heard- church was a facility. The "treatment" prescribed was to be placed amongst positive people who could serve as living examples of positive behavior as cruel as that may appear.

Let's be frank- you want your teenager raised in a cage 24 hours a day by hoodlums and criminals, or sit through a boring "morality" sermon 40 minutes a week? Remember, only one of two options are on the table here- raised in depravity and fear or maybe getting a little of teh Jesus on them.
 
2012-11-17 07:29:06 AM

if_i_really_have_to: So if I kill someone but feel really bad about it, I shouldn't have to go to prison? Or does that only work if I was voluntarily impaired? So I should get drunk before I kill someone, and feel bad about it, and then it's okay? I get a pat on the head and sent home?


A couple of years ago a biker was killed near where I live. The investigation put the blame on the biker. He was speeding. No blame was put on the guy who turned in front of him. No charges were filed. I'm very familiar with the intersection and I'd bet any amount of money that the guy who turned in front of him blew a red light. If he didn't then at the very least he was guilty of failing to yield the right of way. Now, the driver who killed this guy wasn't drunk and by all reports hadn't even been drinking but he still at the very least failed to yield the right of way. He got a pat on the head and was sent home and that was that. Was that right?

Was he voluntarily impaired? IMO, he was. He hadn't been drinking, but he failed to look at oncoming traffic before he entered the intersection. Failing to look is a huge problem and it is a form of voluntary impairment.

This guy didn't wreck because he had a drink before driving. He wrecked because he made a stupid maneuver while behind the wheel.

Gunther: Happy Hours: This article and another one I read about the incident didn't even explain how he crashed. But by golly we know he had a couple of drinks and that's what killed his passenger

A jury convicted him of manslaughter. Clearly those idiots don't know the specifics of the case as well as you, though.


I don't know the specifics and I don't think anyone in this thread does either. The only thing we know is that despite having a drink before driving he was under the legal limit for an adult, but he wasn't an adult.
 
2012-11-17 07:29:15 AM

Happy Hours: 9Speed: Happy Hours: Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

Article doesn't say, but I'm sure this was more along the lines of these are the probation terms you must follow in order to avoid prison.

If he objects to church so much he can man up and serve time. Me? I'd much prefer to spend 1-2 hours in church once a week for 10 years than spend a single night in prison and it would probably be more beneficial. Say what you want about religion but there are some positive aspects to it and the church doesn't actually force you to believe everything they say.

Take what you need and you leave the rest,

The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.

Beneficial? Are you serious? Beneficial to whom? Taxpayers, because they don't have to pay for his room and board? The kid, because he's getting off easy for utilizing a complete lack of judgement resulting in the death of another person?

Teach him public speaking and have him talk to other teens about underage drinking or have him give talks in drivers ed classes about using good judgement, have him play with abused kids at a child crisis center, converse with or read to patients at a hospital or elderly care facility, serve food at a homeless shelters, pick up garbage on the side of the freeway etc. You could come up with any number of activities that would be far, far more beneficial to the community and to him than having him sit and twiddle his thumbs in church for an hour or two a week.

This "punishment" isn't beneficial to anyone... it's a lazy, ineffectual, feel-good judgement and it's absolute crap.

Yes, this sentence is more beneficial to taxpayers and it is more beneficial to the defendant. Did I stutter?

Could the community benefit from having him speak to underage teens? Yes, but not if ...


Crime of the century? No... but he was charged with manslaughter, which is a very serious offense. I agree that prison would do him far more harm than good, but the "he's already sorry for what he did" nonsense doesn't fly. He owes a debt to the community that should be repaid, and no, you didn't stutter, but I can't fathom how you can possibly believe church is actually beneficial for anything other than the incredibly superficial reasons I gave in my response (saving tax payer money and "not ruining his life"). Your not making a positive impact on his life or his community when he's a seat-filler in a pew.

Yeah, kids have a way of getting glossy-eyed when adults start in with their "drugs and alcohol are bad, mmmkay" speeches, but you bring in a teenage kid, a peer, who has a personal story with a gut-wrenching "I killed my best friend", you're going to grab their attention.

You keep pointing out that his BAC was under the legal limit... I wonder, was your tolerance for alcohol the same at 16 as it is at your current age?
 
2012-11-17 07:29:32 AM

jmr61: Dead for Tax Reasons: Can I get prison instead?

As a FARK atheist I would demand it.


I sure you could have opted out for the ten years behind bars in lieu of a forty minute sermon each week if you had mentioned that to your attourney.
 
2012-11-17 07:30:33 AM

if_i_really_have_to: DerAppie: The guy is already being punished

Aw poor killer has hurty feewings. Shall I bring him a glass of warm milk?



... Some people are beyond help.

One more time: He didn't kill anyone. he was in an accident in which someone died. If he wasn't under the legal drinking age no one would have been screaming for his blood the way people are now.

So if I kill someone but feel really bad about it, I shouldn't have to go to prison? Or does that only work if I was voluntarily impaired? So I should get drunk before I kill someone, and feel bad about it, and then it's okay? I get a pat on the head and sent home?

All your examples denote some form of intent. Either by planning (getting drunk as an excuse) or by actively participating in the act (by actually killing someone). Losing control of the car in which you are seated is amongst the dumbest things anyone could do if you intended to kill someone (I have no details about the crash but I'm willing to bet he didn't crash on purpose). He didn't walk up to his friend with an axe and simply started chopping.

I have never understood why being impaired is an excuse for a lighter sentence because the criminal "didn't know what they were doing". biatch, you CHOSE to make yourself that way, you know the effect it has on you. Impaired people should get a heavier sentence for choosing the increase the likelihood that they'll do something stupid and hurt someone.

People should own up to their decisions. If you do something stupid while drunk, regardless of what it is, it is on you. But the only (known) law that was broken was that he had a drink while 16 (BAC lower than 0.08% means he had less than 2 beers in his system). The fact that someone died wasn't necessarily related to the alcohol, sober people can also have car accidents.
 
2012-11-17 07:35:13 AM
Atheism is a Religion
 
2012-11-17 07:35:13 AM

Lsherm: Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.


Oh gods, you wanna see the derp go right off the scales?
1. parents don't believe in medicine because god duh
2. child dies from sepsis
3. judge forbids parents from praying or going to church for ten years

I would give so much money to see this happen lol
 
2012-11-17 07:37:11 AM

clowncar on fire: 9Speed: clowncar on fire: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

The kid was a bonehead and as a result, got his friend killed. Other than that one act of stupidity, he may have been a pretty good kid. Would you prefer he spend the first ten years of his adulthood behind bars amongst hardened career criminals? I'm guessing is what this kid received was a form of probation for the next ten years where he will be checking in with his "probation" officers as well as receiving counseling all in one shot. Seems like a violation of those terms, as agreed on by the prosecution, will land this kid's butt in big boy jail.

The real outrage- I'm predicting without reading the through the thread-- will be that he will have to serve his federally mandated sentence in a religious oriented community. A blend of church and state which is clearly forbidden by Constitutional Ammendmant, right?

I respectfully disagree. The decision to send the offender to church was based on which facility they believed the boy would receive the best treatment for his offense. In this instance, that orginization happened have a religious componant to it. Christian/religion orientated schools have a high demographic of non-christian/religious participants- as do many christian or religious based medical facilities-- but not for the religious componant of these organizations, but rather the quality of se ...


OK, I haven't seen anything (not that I've looked too hard) that would indicate that his sentence at church is anything other than listening to sermons. That being said, you keep turning this into a false dichotomy: either 1) 10 years in prison or 2) 10 years of church. No, I don't think prison is necessary, but he's not helping anyone, including himself, if the only reason he's attending church is because it is mandated by the court.

There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.
 
2012-11-17 07:37:34 AM

doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.


Not sure if troll. The Church of Satan is by it's very nature NOT atheistic... it's right there in the name lol
 
2012-11-17 07:40:28 AM

Mr. Carpenter: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Not sure if troll. The Church of Satan is by it's very nature NOT atheistic... it's right there in the name lol


Probably not on the local registry of churches anyhow, so it wasn't an option.
 
2012-11-17 07:42:16 AM
Hey, ease up. He didn't f*ck the kid; he just killed him.
 
2012-11-17 07:44:47 AM

Mr. Carpenter: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Not sure if troll. The Church of Satan is by it's very nature NOT atheistic... it's right there in the name lol


"Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It's indifferent. There's no God, there's no Devil. No one cares!'"
-Peter Gilmore - administrator and representative of the Church of Satan and author of the introduction of The Satanic Bible.
 
2012-11-17 07:47:34 AM

letrole: Atheism is a Religion


Happens all the time. The feds step aside allowing the freedom to practice religion. When that religion begans to endanger the life of a childer, they step in. Many of the children that die "faith healing" often do so when the feds are blocked by court action or more often, when the practitioners of faith healing disappear off the grid before the authorities can get to them, only to reappear too late, but in time to generate a public interest story. They are prosecuted on charges of manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

But then again, you knew this already- you were just trying to stir the pot a little, weren't you.
 
2012-11-17 07:49:20 AM

clowncar on fire: letrole: Atheism is a Religion

Happens all the time. The feds step aside allowing the freedom to practice religion. When that religion begans to endanger the life of a childer, they step in. Many of the children that die "faith healing" often do so when the feds are blocked by court action or more often, when the practitioners of faith healing disappear off the grid before the authorities can get to them, only to reappear too late, but in time to generate a public interest story. They are prosecuted on charges of manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

But then again, you knew this already- you were just trying to stir the pot a little, weren't you.


That's all he does... even his name is a giveaway.
 
2012-11-17 07:49:56 AM
Go to the most libby lib church he can find; I doubt the judge would be pleased.
 
2012-11-17 07:53:27 AM

9Speed: OK, I haven't seen anything (not that I've looked too hard) that would indicate that his sentence at church is anything other than listening to sermons. That being said, you keep turning this into a false dichotomy: either 1) 10 years in prison or 2) 10 years of church. No, I don't think prison is necessary, but he's not helping anyone, including himself, if the only reason he's attending church is because it is mandated by the court.

There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.


Good luck trying to get this point across/acknowledged. I know I haven't had any.
 
2012-11-17 07:54:32 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: velvet_fog: Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence...[some text]

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkIN ...

[media.giantbomb.com image 494x358]
[memedepot.com image 413x413]

/etc


This is a 17 year old kid, just getting started with his life- not a repeat (presumeably) offender. Nothing apologist about wanting to give the kid a chance at living. Most likely,he will carry the death of his friend in his soul for the rest of his life. Maybe this will have a "happy outcome" with the kid hanging himself in a fit of guilt fueled anguish. The, and only then- will your brand of justice be truly served.
 
2012-11-17 08:01:30 AM

9Speed: Mr. Carpenter: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Not sure if troll. The Church of Satan is by it's very nature NOT atheistic... it's right there in the name lol

"Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It's indifferent. There's no God, there's no Devil. No one cares!'"
-Peter Gilmore - administrator and representative of the Church of Satan and author of the introduction of The Satanic Bible.


LOL take a single quote out of context, extrapolate an entire straw man around it, yep I'm still on Fark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

They believe that the self is God, the only sin is the setting of something between you and your desires, they believe in witch craft and sorcery and magic. Nice try though.
 
2012-11-17 08:03:46 AM

9Speed: Crime of the century? No... but he was charged with manslaughter, which is a very serious offense. I agree that prison would do him far more harm than good, but the "he's already sorry for what he did" nonsense doesn't fly. He owes a debt to the community that should be repaid, and no, you didn't stutter, but I can't fathom how you can possibly believe church is actually beneficial for anything other than the incredibly superficial reasons I gave in my response (saving tax payer money and "not ruining his life"). Your not making a positive impact on his life or his community when he's a seat-filler in a pew.

Yeah, kids have a way of getting glossy-eyed when adults start in with their "drugs and alcohol are bad, mmmkay" speeches, but you bring in a teenage kid, a peer, who has a personal story with a gut-wrenching "I killed my best friend", you're going to grab their attention.

You keep pointing out that his BAC was under the legal limit... I wonder, was your tolerance for alcohol the same at 16 as it is at your current age?


Yes, manslaughter is a serious offense, I think the lesson here is probably more along the lines of wear your seatbelt and don't take stupid chances behind the wheel rather than if you drink even a sip of beer before you drive you're going to kill someone.

And I think remorse should be considered during sentencing. It shouldn't be a free pass and remorse can easily be faked, but a lack of remorse should be cause for a harsher sentence.

My tolerance for alcohol at 16 was probably more outweighed by my inexperience as a driver and teen stupidity. I'm a much better driver today both because of experience behind the wheel and a realization that driving like a bat out of hell doesn't do anything other than put myself and other drivers at risk - something I didn't quite grasp at the age of 16.

Church might be beneficial and I say that as a staunch agnostic who hasn't set foot in a church for a couple of decades aside from the occasional wedding I have attended. The court is not requiring him to be baptized or go to confession. Every time he goes to church it will serve as a reminder not to repeat the behavior that got him his conditions of probation. And he has a choice of churches too.
 
2012-11-17 08:06:56 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: clowncar on fire: letrole: Atheism is a Religion

Happens all the time. The feds step aside allowing the freedom to practice religion. When that religion begans to endanger the life of a childer, they step in. Many of the children that die "faith healing" often do so when the feds are blocked by court action or more often, when the practitioners of faith healing disappear off the grid before the authorities can get to them, only to reappear too late, but in time to generate a public interest story. They are prosecuted on charges of manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

But then again, you knew this already- you were just trying to stir the pot a little, weren't you.

They could always have a plant inside faith healing organizations, kind of like what they did during the 60s with those protesters... that worked pretty well didn't it?

/oh wait...


It wouldn't surprise me to find that many religious organizations are under the watchful eye of the government for various reasons, be it questionable healing practices, financial sourcing, etc. The problem arrises when families seek injunctions against health practioners and then disappear off the grid rather than seek outside medical attention, especially in sparsely populated areas or reservations where immediate intervention is nearly impossible.
 
2012-11-17 08:07:17 AM

9Speed: There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.


I can see your point that lecturing other teens on the dangers of driving while stupid might benefit the community more than him attending church, but I don't see how that has a better chance of him coming out as a "better all-around person"
 
2012-11-17 08:07:37 AM

Mr. Carpenter: 9Speed: Mr. Carpenter: doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Not sure if troll. The Church of Satan is by it's very nature NOT atheistic... it's right there in the name lol

"Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It's indifferent. There's no God, there's no Devil. No one cares!'"
-Peter Gilmore - administrator and representative of the Church of Satan and author of the introduction of The Satanic Bible.

LOL take a single quote out of context, extrapolate an entire straw man around it, yep I'm still on Fark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan

They believe that the self is God, the only sin is the setting of something between you and your desires, they believe in witch craft and sorcery and magic. Nice try though.


They don't believe in a literal god. It's more of a solipsist philosophy, where the self-consciouse is the center of the universe, therefore the only thing of importance. The other stuff? Who knows if they actually believe it or do it for attention. Either way it doesn't matter. You can be atheist and still believe in magic and bigfoot and other nonsense. It's generally hypocritical (depending on your reasoning), but possible.
 
2012-11-17 08:23:56 AM

Happy Hours: 9Speed: There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.

I can see your point that lecturing other teens on the dangers of driving while stupid might benefit the community more than him attending church, but I don't see how that has a better chance of him coming out as a "better all-around person"


Do I have to explain this, too? Sometimes, when people are forced to be involved in activities that benefit the community, a re-imaging of self worth and a new perspective can spark a permanent desire to help others. This kid might find that he likes making an impact on the lives of his peers and decide that he wants to dedicate his life to this new cause. Perhaps he'll find a way to make his friend's death less meaningless? This is pure speculation at this point, but I've seen very similar things happen to a nephew who got in trouble with the law and also to a former student of mine.
 
2012-11-17 08:24:08 AM
Just a few things: First, the legal BAC for someone who is underage is 0.0 . They are not allowed to have any alcohol in their system, period.

Second, I could care less about the no jail thing, but make the punishment meaningful. Give him some heavy duty community service instead.

Third, to paraphrase Dave Chappelle, how old is 17 really? Everyone keeps calling him a kid, and in the eyes of the law, he is. But it's not like the day he turns 18 he suddenly has all the knowledge he needs as an adult. I guarantee your average 18 year old is equally as much a dumbass as your average 17 year old.
 
2012-11-17 08:28:49 AM
Would have been the easiest appeal ever.
 
2012-11-17 08:29:42 AM
From the Yahoo article, it seems that the judge was doing this to convert the kid, not for societal and mental wellness.

"I told my preacher I thought I led more people to Jesus than he had but, then again, more of my people have amnesia. They soon forget once they get out of jail." - Judge Mike Norman

Yeah, sure, this guy is trying to get someone to reform without jail time, but his motivation is conversion, which is unacceptable. Maybe if he wasn't in some kind of soul saving competition with his preacher.
 
2012-11-17 08:40:11 AM
Happy Hours:
My stuff snipped...
My tolerance for alcohol at 16 was probably more outweighed by my inexperience as a driver and teen stupidity. I'm a much better driver today both because of experience behind the wheel and a realization that driving like a bat out of hell doesn't do anything other than put myself and other drivers at risk - something I didn't quite grasp at the age of 16.

Church might be beneficial and I say that as a staunch agnostic who hasn't set foot in a church for a couple of decades aside from the occasional wedding I have attended. The court is not requiring him to be baptized or go to confession. Every time he goes to church it will serve as a reminder not to repeat the behavior that got him his conditions of probation. And he has a choice of churches too.


The judge sentenced him to service so that he "could pray for forgiveness". No, that's not forcing him to get baptized, but it is mandating religious acknowledgment. The judge sure isn't sending him to church to partake in the after-service donuts.

Second, fine, so now he sits in church and broods over his friend's death. Big deal? This helps him how? This helps him repay his debt to society how? He could have the same reminder every time he does something that benefits the community, as well. Heck, he's a lot more likely to come away thinking something along the lines of "well, my best friend is dead because of me, but at least I'm doing something to try to make up for it."
 
2012-11-17 08:41:40 AM

LadyBelgara: 9Speed: OK, I haven't seen anything (not that I've looked too hard) that would indicate that his sentence at church is anything other than listening to sermons. That being said, you keep turning this into a false dichotomy: either 1) 10 years in prison or 2) 10 years of church. No, I don't think prison is necessary, but he's not helping anyone, including himself, if the only reason he's attending church is because it is mandated by the court.

There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.

Good luck trying to get this point across/acknowledged. I know I haven't had any.


Yeah, I'm giving up, too.
 
2012-11-17 08:44:59 AM
So wait, he killed someone and he's not getting punished for it? If I were the other kid's parent, I'd be incomprehensibly pissed. Yeah, kids do dumb stuff, but kids don't usually kill other kids doing it. Once you've killed a person you're not a kid anymore and you don't deserve two hours of punishment a week. You deserve 24 hours of punishment a day. Preferably for every day that the victim lived.
 
2012-11-17 08:45:29 AM

Nofun: Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.


So community service and fines don't help society anymore?

Gyrfalcon: I have to laugh, albeit bitterly, when I see someone condemning a 17-year old kid to prison for even so heinous a crime as this. ...


Why don't we consider releasing all the people serving time for possession or other nonviolent crimes before we start sparing the rod for murderers and manslaughterers?

What about all the teenage black kids doing life for murder because they were along for the ride when a petty theft turned into murder, when they were neither driving nor armed? etc.
 
2012-11-17 08:55:31 AM

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: for any crime less than first-degree murder

Oh, and I have a simple solution: why ARE YOU NOT charged with first-degree murder when your consumption habits and level of incapacitation are largely responsible for an accident that otherwise would have not occurred?

I mean, it seems like we're splitting hairs. This was beyond involuntary manslaughter.


That's how I see it - murder during the commission of a felony (DUI) = 1st degree.

DUI is a felony, right?
 
2012-11-17 09:01:58 AM
As a Fark Atheist (well, agnostic more properly; if you can't prove God exists, you really can't prove God doesn't exist either), what offends me most about this is the lightness of the sentence.

The other thing that amuses me is the rather naive notion that Evangelical Christians (in particular) seem to have that just going to church will make you a better person, that it will cause morality to seep into your character through osmosis. This kid can basically just show up to church every Sunday and snooze for an hour or two and he's gotten away with killing someone and not learned a damn thing.
 
2012-11-17 09:02:52 AM

harm dealer:

Murder requires intent.


If you play russian roulette (only you point it at someone else), is that intent?

If you blindfold yourself, and spin around in a circle while shooting a gun in your apartment or hotel room, is that intent?

Or is it "an unfortunate accident" if you actually hit somebody?

If you run a red light and crash into somone, is that intent?

At a certain point, willful recklessness and disregard for others becomes the equivalent of intent.
 
2012-11-17 09:03:01 AM

9Speed: Happy Hours:
My stuff snipped...
My tolerance for alcohol at 16 was probably more outweighed by my inexperience as a driver and teen stupidity. I'm a much better driver today both because of experience behind the wheel and a realization that driving like a bat out of hell doesn't do anything other than put myself and other drivers at risk - something I didn't quite grasp at the age of 16.

Church might be beneficial and I say that as a staunch agnostic who hasn't set foot in a church for a couple of decades aside from the occasional wedding I have attended. The court is not requiring him to be baptized or go to confession. Every time he goes to church it will serve as a reminder not to repeat the behavior that got him his conditions of probation. And he has a choice of churches too.

The judge sentenced him to service so that he "could pray for forgiveness". No, that's not forcing him to get baptized, but it is mandating religious acknowledgment. The judge sure isn't sending him to church to partake in the after-service donuts.

Second, fine, so now he sits in church and broods over his friend's death. Big deal? This helps him how? This helps him repay his debt to society how? He could have the same reminder every time he does something that benefits the community, as well. Heck, he's a lot more likely to come away thinking something along the lines of "well, my best friend is dead because of me, but at least I'm doing something to try to make up for it."


The requirement is that he attends church, not that he actually prays or anything. He could just as easily brood over his friend's death everytime he spoke to a group of teens about the dangers of drinking and driving but I'm still astounded by this case being a DUI when he wasn't even drunk.

Hell, the judge could have ordered him to stand outside of bars every weekend with a sign saying he would drive anyone home who wasn't quite sure of their sobriety. That would benefit society, wouldn't it?

I've left bars with a higher BAC than when I entered them. I may have even been over the ridiculous limit of 0.05 (law where I live - it's not 0.08 like all you other drunken states). If there were a volunteer to chauffeur me home at that point at no cost to me I might let them. OTOH, I've never been in an accident or been arrested due to being drunk.
 
2012-11-17 09:04:15 AM

Shadowtag: Less atheist than egoist. I've met an absurd number of people who claimed membership in the Church of Satan and surprise! They were all douchenozzles.


Pretty much. They don't believe, but I understand they do (among other acts of aggressive hedonism) greatly enjoy pissing people off, particularly Christians.
 
2012-11-17 09:07:35 AM

gibbon1: Little chestnut. Whats the difference morally between getting drunk, driving and almost hitting someone, and actually running them over? Seems the major difference between Mr served time for manslaughter and Mr has a good story is pure luck.


Same can be said for any criminal.

"The cops nabbed me, stupid guard dogs, etc." "I totally robbed that jewelry store!"
"Shiat, I got 25 to life." "I got away with murder!" etc.
 
2012-11-17 09:10:41 AM

Happy Hours: The kid was an inexperienced driver and an inexperienced drinker and on top of that he was a teenager. This is a much better idea for everyone compared to sending the kid to prison.


That's what the kid needs: More experience drinking and driving.

/Get back on that horse
//Stay off the wagon
 
2012-11-17 09:22:18 AM

Happy Hours: He'd probably only been driving for a few months and he probably thought he was a great driver and could go fast, run red lights and take curves at dangerous speeds without consequence.


...and you think believing this kid could be impaired at under the legal limit is a leap of faith? That even a couple drinks might create or reinforce those feelings you apparently attribute to all youth?

You're so concerned about the facts surrounding the accident, why do you assume the kid was reckless at all? He could have been skittish, or tired. Or more likely, distracted by phones or friends or what have you.
 
2012-11-17 09:25:01 AM

clowncar on fire: Remember, only one of two options are on the table here- raised in depravity and fear or maybe getting a little of teh Jesus on them.


So, just to be clear, the first option is jail and the second one is church, right? Just wanna get that straight.
 
2012-11-17 09:34:50 AM
This kid is now legally required to practice religion, under penalty of going to prison if he doesn't comply.

You may prefer it as an alternative to being sentenced directly to prison (I'd prefer this sentence if it were me), but that doesn't change the fact that he's under a legal order to participate in religion, which is clearly farking illegal.
 
2012-11-17 09:38:59 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.


"Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of obligation/brainwashing/stupidity is not justice."

FTFY
 
2012-11-17 09:44:54 AM
Ok, soooo, for those of you that think it's ok that an officer of the court sentenced a person to go to church, thereby effectively shiatting on the 1st amendment...

How would you feel if your minister, pastor, priest "sentenced" you to jail. Preposterous, right? This is no different other than the Judge has LEGAL power to force this.

I also think that court ordered AA is bullshiat. Now, if the court says instead that you must attend a rehabilitation program of your choice, specifying outpatient or inpatient, and that person chooses AA - then fantastic. But to force a person to go to AA, which is essentially a religious cult, that is complete and total bullshiat.

/I know, I sound fat.
//Separation of church and state issues really rankle me.
 
2012-11-17 09:46:49 AM

clevernamehere: Happy Hours: He'd probably only been driving for a few months and he probably thought he was a great driver and could go fast, run red lights and take curves at dangerous speeds without consequence.

...and you think believing this kid could be impaired at under the legal limit is a leap of faith? That even a couple drinks might create or reinforce those feelings you apparently attribute to all youth?

You're so concerned about the facts surrounding the accident, why do you assume the kid was reckless at all? He could have been skittish, or tired. Or more likely, distracted by phones or friends or what have you.


Okay, this may come as a surprise to you, but I have a bad reputation with some people because I have admitted to driving under the influence and I think there is a witch hunt against anyone who drives after a few drinks.

But I can tell you that driving impaired does not cause accidents. Driving stupidly does and that often involves one of those things that you quoted and put in bold text.

Skittish? WTF do you mean? How does that lead to an accident?
Tired? By some reports that's as dangerous as drunk driving
Distracted by phones or friends? A plausible explanation but still no excuse for getting into an accident. If you're going to talk on the phone while driving the road still has to be your priority.

How many teenagers have killed other teenagers because of bad driving when there wasn't even alcohol (or other drugs) involved? Probably quite a few. As an example, I recall a Mustang that was driven so fast and crashed so bad that it ended up split in half. The 2 passengers in the back seat died. The 2 in the front survived. Yes, they were teens and no, alcohol was not involved. That's just one example. If I cared to research it I could come up with thousands more.

Since this teen drank but wasn't even over the legal limit the MADD activists are jumping all over this 

Driving is really simple. Of all the traffic fatalities where I live in the past 5 years or so none of them were due simply to someone being wasted. In fact only one of them even involved a wasted driver and that was because he took a curve way too fast on a motorcycle. Maybe he wouldn't have done that if he were sober, but it's still a matter of bad judgement not simply being drunk.

2 of those fatalities were people on bikes. Neither of them would have died if they had been "cagers". So if you're so concerned about human life maybe we should outlaw 2-wheeled vehicles.
 
2012-11-17 09:47:04 AM
Did the judge specifically specify Sunday, like the article says? That is basically telling him he has to go to a Christian church.
 
2012-11-17 09:57:55 AM
Haven't been on fark in years, but apparently it's now full of religious pussies. This judge is breaking the 1st Amendment, plain and simple. Lawyers have successfully argued against sentences that include AA for the exact same reason.
 
2012-11-17 10:15:31 AM

Happy Hours: Happy Hours: Okay, this may come as a surprise to you, but I have a bad reputation with some people because I have admitted to driving under the influence and I think there is a witch hunt against anyone who drives after a few drinks.


Granted, it would be the easiest witch hunt ever, just about everyone who drinks at all drives afterwards, and most of them probably have more than a drink left in their systems most times. In all of college, I made myself available as a D.D., and I was taken up precisely 0 times.

But I can tell you that driving impaired does not cause accidents. Driving stupidly does and that often involves one of those things that you quoted and put in bold text.

Driving impaired causes all accidents. The question is, impaired by what. Wait... are you saying driving drunk has never caused an accident? That every "drunk driving" accident was actually caused by something else? Are you serious? And I suppose every drunk fight and drunk fark would have happened anyway as well? Please, continue...

Skittish? WTF do you mean? How does that lead to an accident?

You don't see how someone overcautious/jumpy could get into an accident? Okay... (Someone above mentioned a guy could kill his passenger "because of a squirrel." If you're swerving for a squirrel, I might call you skittish.)

Tired? By some reports that's as dangerous as drunk driving

So you do accept impaired driving as dangerous? And yes, tired is dangerous. It's the most dangerous I've ever been behind the wheel, and frankly kinda scary. But then, at least some of the time you can recognize how dangerous it is and decide to pull over. How often do drunk people say "man, I can't keep it straight, lemme stop for a minute?"

Distracted by phones or friends? A plausible explanation but still no excuse for getting into an accident. If you're going to talk on the phone while driving the road still has to be your priority.

The most common among young people, and probably everyone. And yeah, driving should be your priority. Which is what makes you responsible when something happens.

How many teenagers have killed other teenagers because of bad driving when there wasn't even alcohol (or other drugs) involved? Probably quite a few. As an example, I recall a Mustang that was driven so fast and crashed so bad that it ended up split in half. The 2 passengers in the back seat died. The 2 in the front survived. Yes, they were teens and no, alcohol was not involved. That's just one example. If I cared to research it I could come up with thousands more.

You are not opening my eyes to some kind of revelation, here. I mentioned all these possibilities because they are every bit as dangerous as drunk driving.

My point was, you're discounting the possibility that alcohol had any effect in the accident because he tested under a particular number, and you're making as much of an assumption about the details (he was a reckless kid) as anyone else.

The only thing we know is he had some alcohol and was driving (illegal x2) and was found responsible for the accident by a jury. I don't know what "caused" the accident and apparently neither do you. That's it.
 
2012-11-17 10:35:13 AM

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?


As a devout Catholic as well, I have to wonder how this is constitutional too.
 
2012-11-17 10:38:57 AM
Happy Hours:
My stuff snipped...

Man, you jump around and back and forth in your argument... I'm going to take this little bit line by line:

The requirement is that he attends church, not that he actually prays or anything. He could just as easily brood over his friend's death everytime he spoke to a group of teens about the dangers of drinking and driving...

You've been arguing that it's more beneficial for him to go to church. So let's compare the 2 worst case scenarios:

1) He goes to church, sits and broods over his friend's death
2) He helps other teens and broods over his friend's death

Hmm... I think I'll pick 2 as being the most beneficial (not to mention that it's the legal option). Even if HE doesn't get anything out of it, at least the people he's helping WILL. That seems to me, and to any reasonable person, to be the most beneficial option.

...I'm still astounded by this case being a DUI when he wasn't even drunk.

I don't care how astounded you are.

Your points:
1) Teenagers are inherently bad drivers because they lack experience which can lead to poor judgement
2) Even though he was drinking alcohol (as a minor, no less), his BAC was lower than the legal limit

My points:
1) Yup, teenagers have poor judgement when it comes to driving, but he knowingly and purposefully exhibited demonstrably worse judgement by not only breaking the law when he consumed alcohol, but then compounded it by deciding to drive despite being bombarded with the info that drinking and driving can be dangerous. That is criminal negligence plain and simple. 17 is old enough to be held accountable for misconduct that results in the death of another person. This isn't poor judgement based on inexperience, this is flagrantly exhibiting poor judgment DESPITE knowing that it could have severe consequences.

2) I don't care if he was legally drunk. OK does not care if he was legally drunk. Here's the law: "For any person under 21 years of age, Oklahoma has a zero tolerance policy. The breath alcohol limit for such a person is 0.02%, and any measurable level of alcohol by a breathalyzer is an automatic DUI and driver's license revocation."

Since you bring this up with every single one of your posts, I'm going to give it to you again:

"For any person under 21 years of age, Oklahoma has a zero tolerance policy. The breath alcohol limit for such a person is 0.02%, and any measurable level of alcohol by a breathalyzer is an automatic DUI and driver's license revocation."

Wait, I'm not sure if you saw that:

"For any person under 21 years of age, Oklahoma has a zero tolerance policy. The breath alcohol limit for such a person is 0.02%, and any measurable level of alcohol by a breathalyzer is an automatic DUI and driver's license revocation."

One more time to be sure?

"For any person under 21 years of age, Oklahoma has a zero tolerance policy. The breath alcohol limit for such a person is 0.02%, and any measurable level of alcohol by a breathalyzer is an automatic DUI and driver's license revocation."
 
2012-11-17 10:44:39 AM

Happy Hours: Since this teen drank but wasn't even over the legal limit the MADD activists are jumping all over this


It's been pointed out that 0.00 is the legal limit for minors. Possibly because we don't trust "reckless kids" with alcohol and barely trust them with cars. Maybe you're grown enough to "handle" driving with alcohol in your system, but "kids" aren't.

Driving is really simple.

Then explain to me why I see people having trouble staying in their lanes, turning right, signaling, etc. at all hours of the day.

Of all the traffic fatalities where I live in the past 5 years or so none of them were due simply to someone being wasted. In fact only one of them even involved a wasted driver and that was because he took a curve way too fast on a motorcycle. Maybe he wouldn't have done that if he were sober, but it's still a matter of bad judgement not simply being drunk.

I don't know what magical place you live in (small town? rural area? low population?) but that's fantastic. Where I live there's probably an accident of some sort involving a drunk driver every day, and enough fatalities per year for it to matter. And yes, every accident is going to involve "something" besides being drunk. Maybe that something is a telephone pole. But then I guess it was "bad judgement" to drive across lanes or onto the curb. Tch. Make better decisions, drunk guy.

2 of those fatalities were people on bikes. Neither of them would have died if they had been "cagers". So if you're so concerned about human life maybe we should outlaw 2-wheeled vehicles.

So... bicyclists are responsible for when cars hit them? (honestly some are, but usually not) Oh, you mean motorcycles. Yeah, I don't get the whole motorcycle thing, but that's a matter of taking your life in your hands. Driving drunk (or tired, high, texting, etc.) is taking everyone's life in your hands, and you should be held responsible.

(Actually driving at all is, but that's why you should take care to be as safe as you can.)

And I look at it like this: People complain about being ticketed for driving drunk when there's no accident. ("But it wasn't impairing my driving, nothing happened, etc.)

Okay. Fine. You wanna roll the dice, okay. But when something does happen, then you're going to complain about taking the decision to drink into the equation?

(To be fair, if someone can be proved to have been texting or asleep when an accident happens, I'm okay with them getting a similar charge/punishment.)

Honestly, it's like getting into a car with no brakes and saying, "Well, it wasn't my fault, how was I to know I'd need to brake?" Because you could totally get home safe in such a vehicle. Maybe even 90% of the time. But if you do get in a wreck, that shouldn't come up?

I mean, someone in that situation would probably at least put on their flashers and drive slower, right?

/I've been in 4 car wrecks that I can remember. Driving twice.
//One my fault: Wet roads, bad tires, too sleepy (middle of the afternoon). Fenderbender, no injuries.
///Not my fault: Rear ended by lady in a truck. Texting? Sleepy? Distracted? No idea. I was fully stopped, totaled my car, no injuries.
////Mom rear-ended. Forget details. Stupid accident, no injuries.
//Drunk guy turned left into trailer park from 2-lane road without stopping or signaling. (no light, no sign) We hit him. Totaled our car, dinged his truck. 3 injuries out of 4 people in our car, he got a cut. No liscence, insurance, money on his part. On probation for driving offences. (Forget if it was DUI or not).
//His move (minus the no signal) was perfectly "legal," he just timed it like shiat. If he was sober, he'd have judged the timing better and waited for us (hopefully). Or he'd have reacted more quickly. Or he'd at least have had the decency to get more hurt. Hell, he thought the accident was our fault. Nope, alcohol had nothing to do with that accident, just bad choices.
//DUI laws aren't there to hassle the guy who's burning off his last drink after a steady night of moderation, food, and water. They're there to deal with the guy who does four straight shots on an empty stomach and then drives. Because even if he makes it home clean, he's gambling with other people's money, and they didn't agree to that.
 
2012-11-17 10:50:33 AM
Doesn't the law prohibit cruel and unusual punishment?
 
2012-11-17 10:50:37 AM

clevernamehere: Driving impaired causes all accidents.


That's an interesting perspective and I can see the argument in favor of it. If one takes a curve too fast and wipes out they were impaired by their poor judgement. Same thing if one runs a red light.

But that has little to do with one's BAC.

clevernamehere: My point was, you're discounting the possibility that alcohol had any effect in the accident because he tested under a particular number, and you're making as much of an assumption about the details (he was a reckless kid) as anyone else.


I can't completely discount the possibility, but at less than 0.08 I don't think it was the primary factor. I am making an assumption about teen recklessness. Is it simply a myth that being a male under 25 raises your insurance rates? I've always heard that and it makes sense to me. Maybe he wasn't reckless (but the drinking and the accident suggest he was) but he was still most likely an inexperienced driver.

I'm not going to argue that the alcohol helped any, but let's think about this. Alcohol impairs driving in a couple of ways. First of all it gives some people a false sense of invincibility. This is a bad thing when you're driving. One of the few times I felt the need to take the keys away from someone he urged me to run red lights. I had been drinking too but I refused to run those red lights. A couple of months later when I wasn't with him he ran a red light while he was drunk. The ensuing accident and prison term taught him a lesson but I don't think he ran that light just because he was drunk. He was an arrogant bastard who thought nothing could harm him.

So overconfidence is one problem with DUI. The other is actual impairment, that is blurred vision, tunnel vision, double-vision and slow reaction time. Those aren't binary things. There are varying degrees to all of them.

The way I see it there are about 4 stages of drunkenness. There is legally drunk (0.05 BAC where I live, 0.08 in most other states), there is genuinely drunk (probably about twice that), there is too drunk to drive and there is completely farking wasted. Seems to me this guy hadn't even hit the first stage (at least not in Oklahoma).
 
2012-11-17 10:59:50 AM

Nofun: The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.


Aww shucks.... isn't that nice for the killer. Anything for the victim? Or maybe someone will pray for him.... or something.
 
2012-11-17 11:02:14 AM

ruta: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Does he get to choose which church? Because that would be awesome.

Yeah, this kid could open up a troll-tastic can of worms if the judge didn't specify. The kid could join the Raëlian Church, for example, and get sexed up with alien cherubim every Sunday.

I look forward to the inevitable Follow-Up.


Scientology so his parents go broke buying him Clear
 
2012-11-17 11:17:17 AM

9Speed: Happy Hours:
My stuff snipped...

Man, you jump around and back and forth in your argument... I'm going to take this little bit line by line:

The requirement is that he attends church, not that he actually prays or anything. He could just as easily brood over his friend's death everytime he spoke to a group of teens about the dangers of drinking and driving...

You've been arguing that it's more beneficial for him to go to church. So let's compare the 2 worst case scenarios:

1) He goes to church, sits and broods over his friend's death
2) He helps other teens and broods over his friend's death

Hmm... I think I'll pick 2 as being the most beneficial (not to mention that it's the legal option). Even if HE doesn't get anything out of it, at least the people he's helping WILL. That seems to me, and to any reasonable person, to be the most beneficial option.



I don't think I argued that going to church was more beneficial. I believe I just said that it could be beneficial. Helping other teens could be a good thing, but if that were in the terms of his probation I would hope it would focus on good driving habits as opposed to the evils of drunk driving.



...I'm still astounded by this case being a DUI when he wasn't even drunk.

I don't care how astounded you are.

Your points:
1) Teenagers are inherently bad drivers because they lack experience which can lead to poor judgement
2) Even though he was drinking alcohol (as a minor, no less), his BAC was lower than the legal limit


Yep, and I'll stand by those points.


My points:
1) Yup, teenagers have poor judgement when it comes to driving, but he knowingly and purposefully exhibited demonstrably worse judgement by not only breaking the law when he consumed alcohol, but then compounded it by deciding to drive despite being bombarded with the info that drinking and driving can be dangerous. That is criminal negligence plain and simple. 17 is old enough to be held accountable for misconduct that results in the death of another person. This isn't poor judgement based on inexperience, this is flagrantly exhibiting poor judgment DESPITE knowing that it could have severe consequences.

2) I don't care if he was legally drunk. OK does not care if he was legally drunk. Here's the law: "For any person under 21 years of age, Oklahoma has a zero tolerance ...


Yeah, you're right - I can't argue with #2, but on point #1 even though you're technically right too how many teens (including 20-year olds for purposes of the law) can say they never drank? I'm going to guess it's about the same percentage that grew up to be teatotallers.

In the past few years I can think of 4 instances where I've avoided accidents. I have no reason to believe anyone was drunk in any of those cases. All 4 of them involved lane changes.

1: SUV swerves in front of me and jams on her brakes coming to a dead stop in the middle of traffic. WTF? Was she drunk? I don't know, but being drunk doesn't explain that behavior.
2: SUV starts shifting into my lane. I honk and make eye contact with the driver. He sees me but keeps on coming anyway. Was he drunk? I don't know, but being drunk doesn't explain that behavior either.
3. SUV puts on blinker and cuts in front of me at the same time. Drunk? Probably not, just some stupid teens. They were pissed off that I honked at them too. (just a quick tap on the horn, I didn't lean on it).
4, I put on my blinker and start to change lanes not noticing the car in the lane to my right that was just a little behind me. They honk and I get back in my lane....I hate to admit that, but I can say for sure I had not had a drop of alcohol when I did that. The fact is I should have taken more care to insure that the lane I was changing into was clear.

So, it seems to me that being oblivious to other drivers or just not paying attention are bigger factors in accidents than whether or not someone had a glass of wine over dinner before they drove home. 

Now when it comes to running red lights I don't care if you're drunk or not, that is just begging for trouble and I think it should be dealt with way more severely than it is today. The resulting accident is usually going to be much more severe than an errant lane change.
 
2012-11-17 11:40:40 AM

DerAppie: The person who died was his friend. Do you think he set out to kill him? Or that the guy is already serving a life time sentence due to his own feelings of guilt? We aren't talking about some sociopath here but about a person who just lost a friend because of his own actions. His life is already ruined.


I know somebody who did the exact same thing (killed her friend while drunk driving), and she served five years for it.

She deserved it, because she should have farking known better than to pile up into her vehicle while intoxicated. It doesn't matter that he was her friend or that she feels bad or didn't mean to do it. They still got into a vehicle in that condition. End of the line, line ends here, enjoy your jail time.
 
2012-11-17 11:41:51 AM

DerAppie: //If 16 y.o. Dude got hit by a drunk stranger things would be different


What if the drunk driver was also 16? Do you give him a slap on the wrist then?
 
2012-11-17 11:45:05 AM

yousaywut: Ok real question time.

Your kid had a beer drove home killed his friend due to a squirrel in the road or some shiat. Does he deserve 10 years of prison? Do you think if his lawyer got the Judge to commit him to 10 years of Church/Community service/Psychiatric counseling you wouldn't take it in a heart beat?

//Just because you don't have faith does not mean that others don't.

//Give the kid the benefit of the doubt there isn't enough data to be such assholes in this case.


Yes. And if my kid were sentenced to ten years in prison, I would demand his lawyer go back in there and get him community service or jail time instead.

/I raised my imaginary children better than to get trashed and then operate a vehicle.
//your faith has zero place in everybody else's law
 
2012-11-17 11:48:38 AM

phrawgh: The Lord works in mysterious ways. He called one home and is working on the other one. Everything happens for a reason.


This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Congratulations.
 
2012-11-17 11:51:43 AM

Happy Hours: 9Speed: There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.

I can see your point that lecturing other teens on the dangers of driving while stupid might benefit the community more than him attending church, but I don't see how that has a better chance of him coming out as a "better all-around person"


Please explain, in detail, how exactly going to church would help him come out as an all-around better person.
 
2012-11-17 12:06:20 PM

vrax: MrHappyRotter: vrax: Really?! Church for killing someone while drunk?! Fark yeah! Nap time. Or act possessed. Whatever, it's better than prison.

This is a really stupid sentence.

Yes it is, and the word soup "paragraph" that preceded it wasn't any better.

Man, I was just asking for that, wasn't I?


Yes. It was irresistible.
 
2012-11-17 12:12:20 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Happy Hours: 9Speed: There's plenty of other forms of community service he could be doing that would not only help repay his debt to the community, but just might make him come out of the whole experience a better all-around person in the end.

I can see your point that lecturing other teens on the dangers of driving while stupid might benefit the community more than him attending church, but I don't see how that has a better chance of him coming out as a "better all-around person"

Please explain, in detail, how exactly going to church would help him come out as an all-around better person.


I'm not saying it definitely would. I know how you farkers (in general) are. Religion is evil. Anyone who goes to church is a child molesting homosexual and all that.

But there is a lot of good which flows from churches. Forgiveness of sins, charity towards those less fortunate, being kind towards others, et cetera.....yeah, maybe it takes looking at the good churches can do and ignoring the bad that people do in the name of religion, but it's there.

I'm not religious - I consider myself agnostic and if you haven't heard what Neil Degrasse Tyson has to say about being agnostic I highly recommend it (there's a recent thread here on Fark somewhere). That said I've had good and bad experiences with religious people. I wasn't raped by Catholic priests as a child unlike most of you Farkers who seem to hate religion. Most religious people who I have known are good people. I may not agree with their religious beliefs but they're generally good people.

Can I explain it "in detail"? Well, probably not, but instead of me defending religion (especially when I'm not religious) why don't you tell us why this court's ruling was bad. Bear in mind that the alternative would probably involve prison.
 
2012-11-17 12:18:39 PM

Happy Hours: But there is a lot of good which flows from churches. Forgiveness of sins, charity towards those less fortunate, being kind towards others, et cetera.....yeah, maybe it takes looking at the good churches can do and ignoring the bad that people do in the name of religion, but it's there.


I need citations for that, stat.

/this is just about your need to complain about the vocal non-religious
//let it all out, sweetie
 
2012-11-17 12:20:33 PM

Happy Hours: Bear in mind that the alternative would probably involve prison.


Because the alternative should have been actual community service. Work at a food bank. Give talks about the dangers of getting intoxicated and driving. Connect him to his community and help him connect the dots between what he did and what he could have done.

Don't just sentence him to ten years of being bored off his ass every Sunday. Especially since this judge is in some sort of contest with his pastor to "save souls."

Really, the best decision overall would be to strip this judge of his title (FOREVER) and have the case retried under somebody with some actual legal sense.
 
2012-11-17 12:25:48 PM
And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I What if I want to change religions?
notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-11-17 12:40:12 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Happy Hours: But there is a lot of good which flows from churches. Forgiveness of sins, charity towards those less fortunate, being kind towards others, et cetera.....yeah, maybe it takes looking at the good churches can do and ignoring the bad that people do in the name of religion, but it's there.

I need citations for that, stat.

/this is just about your need to complain about the vocal non-religious
//let it all out, sweetie


I could give you citations from real life example but they aren't available on the internet. They are from real people who didn't do it for the publicity.

It's not about my "need to complain about the vocal non-religious". For fark's sake I'm non-religious.
Now if you had said the "vocal anti-religious" then I might agree that you have a point.

There's a big difference between non-religious and anti-religious.

You seem like a very charitable person. I'd bet you'd offer a starving man a piece of bread - as long as he didn't read the Bible.
 
2012-11-17 01:02:13 PM
10 years of church or the electric chair? choices choices
 
2012-11-17 01:36:41 PM

ExcaliburPrime111: How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.


I hate to say it, but driving drunk...well, if you die, you're probably a statistical outlier. It's not like murdering someone. Yes, the kid died, but they died because, like all teenagers, they and their friends were doing very stupid things. Add in that this kid is, since he's a 17-year-old male, probably still developing his brain, and the light sentence leads me to believe he was either a straight-As prodigy and\or had a shiatty home life...yeah, it makes sense to have a sentence essentially saying 'we, as a society, are going to force you to be a good kid now as a second chance, fark this up and end up in jail'.

But this was not the way to do it. Revoking his driver's license until 21, making him alcohol test until then, making him graduate high school, and making him do community service and go to therapy? That would be a great way to do it. 'Church' will do jack shiat except make the kid bored.

/Kids drive drunk. Kids jump off tall things. Kids are idiots. Yes, we should punish them, but if a judge takes into account that kids are stupid and will do very stupid things...I'd rather redeem someone than lock them away for ten years.
 
2012-11-17 02:01:59 PM
So he'll be told in church that by saying the magic words all of his transgressions will be forgiven. Oh, and bonus: his friend's in a better place anyway, so no harm done. Community service would have been more practical.
 
2012-11-17 02:14:49 PM
The fact that church is better than prison doesn't change the fact that this ruling violated the separation of church and is flat out wrong.

Puts the guy in a position where he has to pretend to be a christian if he isn't or go to jail - wtf.

If this was me would I contest this and risk going to prison? Hell no.

I would on the other hand find the quietest church I could and sit in the back and read.
 
2012-11-17 02:19:37 PM
Actions have consequences, and when you act irresponsibly and cause the loss of life there needs to be consequences that include isolation and separation from regular society. Vehicular homicide deserves incarceration, without exception, but being sentenced to spend time with a zombie jesus cult should be considered cruel and unusual punishment under the UN's declaration of human rights. I really hope the ACLU jumps in here... otherwise it's work farms with state-mandated religious indoctrination for all the poor and ethnic kids.
 
2012-11-17 03:14:57 PM
Stay the fark outta the left lane and we won't have a problem now, will we?
 
2012-11-17 06:32:08 PM
Stopped reading at "Oklahoma"

www.english-online.at
 
2012-11-17 10:54:16 PM

Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.


From TFA:

In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

So only one year.

But man! Was that article written by a spammer?
 
2012-11-17 11:14:42 PM

lilplatinum: I don't know, he was under the legal limit - you know that limit where they decide you are actually impaired. He got manslaughter because if you have a mouthwash quantity of alcohol on your breath it still counts of manslaughter. So I would like to see some numbers before crucifying a farking kid.


I didn't see this in the article or hear it in the video.
 
2012-11-17 11:31:34 PM

greyw1980: What if he wants to convert to Judaism or Islam?
If goes on Sunday and Wednesday, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he converts to Judaism and Islam, can he cut it down to 5 years?
If he is devoutly Islamic praying 5 times a day or can find a Catholic church still saying mass every day, can he cut it down to 18 months?
What if he completes seminary?
Does the Slacker church have services?
Can't he form his own religion?


He could always petition the lord with prayer. Or not
 
2012-11-17 11:56:40 PM

9Speed: Teach him public speaking and have him talk to other teens about underage drinking or have him give talks in drivers ed classes about using good judgement, have him play with abused kids at a child crisis center, converse with or read to patients at a hospital or elderly care facility, serve food at a homeless shelters, pick up garbage on the side of the freeway etc. You could come up with any number of activities that would be far, far more beneficial to the community and to him than having him sit and twiddle his thumbs in church for an hour or two a week


That would make a good TV series. Each week he stands in front of the judge and is sentenced to this weeks community punishment. In each he finds his soul or whatever.

/I have the copyright for this
//for sale
 
2012-11-18 12:33:24 AM

THX 1138: This kid is now legally required to practice religion, under penalty of going to prison if he doesn't comply.

You may prefer it as an alternative to being sentenced directly to prison (I'd prefer this sentence if it were me), but that doesn't change the fact that he's under a legal order to participate in religion, which is clearly farking illegal.


No one says he has to practice anything. He is not required to show up for church socials or even talk to anyone there. All he has to do is show up.
 
2012-11-18 12:40:26 AM

Happy Hours: Driving is really simple. Of all the traffic fatalities where I live in the past 5 years or so none of them were due simply to someone being wasted. In fact only one of them even involved a wasted driver and that was because he took a curve way too fast on a motorcycle. Maybe he wouldn't have done that if he were sober, but it's still a matter of bad judgement not simply being drunk.


Not sure where to begin here. You seem to know a lot about other peoples actions though. Bad judgement or wasted? You seem to know what you don't.
 
2012-11-18 02:26:03 AM

Smoked: You can't stand atheists? I can't stand superstitious idiots.


No, I can't stand Fark atheists (but even then, most are fine. I just can't stand some of you). My wife is an atheist, I can stand her just fine.

doglover: Just give it up man. Your fake outrage ain't helpin' anyone.


Just to clarify, I meant what if, in the next ten years, the kid wants to become an atheist? Doesn't this sentence run smack into his ability for free association, much less a government rule requiring him to favor a religion?
 
2012-11-18 05:22:42 PM

Lsherm: Smoked: You can't stand atheists? I can't stand superstitious idiots.

No, I can't stand Fark atheists (but even then, most are fine. I just can't stand some of you). My wife is an atheist, I can stand her just fine.

doglover: Just give it up man. Your fake outrage ain't helpin' anyone.

Just to clarify, I meant what if, in the next ten years, the kid wants to become an atheist? Doesn't this sentence run smack into his ability for free association, much less a government rule requiring him to favor a religion?


As I think others have pointed out, if this was a "suggested sentence" by the defense, and all parties agreed, then I dont think it matters. He entered into a plea "agreement" and will need to fulfill the terms of the agreement. If he had offered 10 years of community service, it would have been the same. If he had offered 10 years of not voting, or 10 years of having to wear a dress at school - regardless of what he offered, if it was not illegal to perform or to offer, my absolutely worthless legal opinion, based on absolutely no expertise at all, says that he can be bound to an agreement that includes church attendance. He doesnt have to swear conversion to a religion, or even claim to be a practitioner of a religion. He can even officially delcare himself atheist - but he still has to perform the duty of "attendance" and nothing more, said the guy who never read the full article and might be completely wrong.
 
Displayed 241 of 241 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report