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 77
    More: Stupid, Tyler Allred, passengers  
•       •       •

9679 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-17 01:48:17 AM
8 votes:

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 01:32:04 AM
6 votes:
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 12:28:16 AM
6 votes:
gonna get raped either way.
2012-11-17 02:11:51 AM
5 votes:

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 01:29:49 AM
5 votes:
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 03:36:25 AM
4 votes:
Imagine the outrage if he'd ordered the kid to pray towards Mecca five times a day.
2012-11-17 03:36:13 AM
3 votes:

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 03:34:50 AM
3 votes:

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 02:40:35 AM
3 votes:
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 02:14:14 AM
3 votes:

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 02:10:17 AM
3 votes:

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 01:48:30 AM
3 votes:

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 01:43:26 AM
3 votes:
Kid was born White. Lucky lucky.
2012-11-16 11:59:22 PM
3 votes:
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 09:01:58 AM
2 votes:
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 07:11:35 AM
2 votes:

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 06:55:36 AM
2 votes:

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 05:10:59 AM
2 votes:

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 04:32:07 AM
2 votes:
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 03:16:13 AM
2 votes:

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 03:14:43 AM
2 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Hate speech and bigotry thread, yeah fark.


Sayeth the biggest racist on Fark.
2012-11-17 03:08:27 AM
2 votes:

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 03:08:04 AM
2 votes:

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 12:27:29 AM
2 votes:

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 09:57:55 AM
1 votes:
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 09:44:54 AM
1 votes:
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 09:38:59 AM
1 votes:

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 08:45:29 AM
1 votes:

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 08:41:40 AM
1 votes:

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 08:40:11 AM
1 votes:
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 08:29:42 AM
1 votes:
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 08:24:08 AM
1 votes:
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 08:23:56 AM
1 votes:

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 08:01:30 AM
1 votes:

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 07:53:27 AM
1 votes:

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 07:37:34 AM
1 votes:

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 07:37:11 AM
1 votes:

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 07:35:13 AM
1 votes:

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 06:59:23 AM
1 votes:

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 06:50:11 AM
1 votes:

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 05:58:46 AM
1 votes:

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 05:29:06 AM
1 votes:

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 05:27:45 AM
1 votes:

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


[welcometofark.jpg]
2012-11-17 05:01:37 AM
1 votes:

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 04:59:28 AM
1 votes:

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 04:59:02 AM
1 votes:

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 04:47:07 AM
1 votes:

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 04:39:23 AM
1 votes:

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 04:31:22 AM
1 votes:
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 04:08:18 AM
1 votes:
More from the American Taliban.
2012-11-17 03:52:56 AM
1 votes:

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 03:46:13 AM
1 votes:
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 03:41:17 AM
1 votes:

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 03:39:16 AM
1 votes:

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 03:38:42 AM
1 votes:
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 03:12:09 AM
1 votes:
So.... from murderer to child molester, is this what they're going for?
2012-11-17 03:07:35 AM
1 votes:
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 02:53:58 AM
1 votes:

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 02:36:52 AM
1 votes:
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 02:28:27 AM
1 votes:
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 02:22:09 AM
1 votes:

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 02:20:56 AM
1 votes:
Can we at least send his parents to prison for a little while?
2012-11-17 02:11:52 AM
1 votes:
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...
hej
2012-11-17 01:55:32 AM
1 votes:

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 01:53:46 AM
1 votes:
So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...
2012-11-17 01:46:56 AM
1 votes:
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 01:40:04 AM
1 votes:

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 01:35:44 AM
1 votes:

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 01:27:25 AM
1 votes:
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 01:27:10 AM
1 votes:
Wow, just wow.
2012-11-17 01:11:07 AM
1 votes:
Don't worry, kid, the state is just establishing church for you. Perfectly Constitutional.
2012-11-17 12:56:49 AM
1 votes:
What if he wants to be a Rastafarian? would the Judge allow that? I would choose the church of Satan myself.
2012-11-17 12:44:39 AM
1 votes:

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 12:44:07 AM
1 votes:

Lorelle: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Clearly cruel and unusual punishment

Especially if it's a Catholic church.


Yeah... I'd rather do time myself
2012-11-17 12:41:58 AM
1 votes:
Can I get prison instead?
2012-11-17 12:38:12 AM
1 votes:

ksdanj: Is this real life?


Or is it just fantasy?
2012-11-17 12:30:22 AM
1 votes:
Clearly cruel and unusual punishment
 
Displayed 77 of 77 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report