• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Josh Brent, killed cowboys teammate while driving drunk, sentenced to 180 days

YoungBuck95

YoungBuck95

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
23,295
Reaction score
5,792
That's embarrassing. 180 days and 10 years probation.

Would post link, but on my phone.
 
From what I recall, he was incredibly contrite after it happened and admitted his wrongdoing. But he was convicted once of a DWI in college, so a more lengthy sentence, IMO, was warranted.
 
One of Brent's attorneys, George Milner, argued that Brent wasn't drunk and was only "guilty of being stupid behind the wheel of a car." He contended that Brent couldn't have had nearly as much to drink as prosecutors said and that the police blood tests were flawed.
Click to expand...

Not to turn this into an arrogant lawyer speak thread, but how often does a defense like this work? Blaming it on a faulty breathalyzer can't be their best defense, can it?
 
I believe the victim's family really supported Brent as well, asking for minimal punishment. That's one problem I have with taking into account victims' or their families' feelings when it comes to punishment. The idea is "paying a debt to society." Civil court is for personal punitive measures. Obviously victims play a role and must be considered in a criminal case but the problem with that bores out in a case like this.
 
What is more disturbing is this tidbit from the article…

"Prosecutors pushed for prison time for Brent, who went to trial only weeks after another Texas intoxication manslaughter case sparked widespread public outrage. In that case, a defense expert argued that the defendant, a 17-year-old male who caused a drunken crash that killed four people, deserved leniency because his parents coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility -- a condition the expert termed "affluenza." The teen wasn't given prison time."

oh Texas…you crazy.
 
smallbigtall said:
Not to turn this into an arrogant lawyer speak thread, but how often does a defense like this work? Blaming it on a faulty breathalyzer can't be their best defense, can it?
Click to expand...

Happens every day - the cops are the ones that regulate the breathalyzer - and since they aren't "approved" most any lawyer can bring in an expert that can show how faulty the device will be when not properly regulated - this is how 99%* of duis get thrown out.

* - completely made up stat - but it is how most people with money avoid jail time
 
94Deac said:
I believe the victim's family really supported Brent as well, asking for minimal punishment. That's one problem I have with taking into account victims' or their families' feelings when it comes to punishment. The idea is "paying a debt to society." Civil court is for personal punitive measures. Obviously victims play a role and must be considered in a criminal case but the problem with that bores out in a case like this.
Click to expand...

The fact that the victim's family asked for a minimal punishment is the key point. That is fairly unusual. Typically, the victim's family asks for the max sentence, but when it asks for no jail time, the Court will take that into account. Also, the 10 years probation is key. If Brent f's up, his probation will be revoked, and he will serve out his sentence in the big house.
 
2nd DUI + death should equal a much longer sentence.

There's basically no excuse for a pro athlete to be driving drunk. I believe many leagues provide town-car service 24/7 to players.
 
Pilchard said:
The fact that the victim's family asked for a minimal punishment is the key point. That is fairly unusual. Typically, the victim's family asks for the max sentence, but when it asks for no jail time, the Court will take that into account. Also, the 10 years probation is key. If Brent f's up, his probation will be revoked, and he will serve out his sentence in the big house.
Click to expand...

Again, though, the problem is that this is an offense against society. Obviously there's a victim but I'm talking more to the larger philosophical point behind criminal law and offenses. The idea is to punish for behavior society finds unacceptable. Regardless, this isn't the first time nor will it be the last. Vince Neil, Donte Stallworth, hell even Don King. When punishment takes a back seat to financial negotiations, the law loses a little more morality.
 
94Deac said:
Again, though, the problem is that this is an offense against society. Obviously there's a victim but I'm talking more to the larger philosophical point behind criminal law and offenses. The idea is to punish for behavior society finds unacceptable. Regardless, this isn't the first time nor will it be the last. Vince Neil, Donte Stallworth, hell even Don King. When punishment takes a back seat to financial negotiations, the law loses a little more morality.
Click to expand...

Agree that drunk driving endangers everyone. Did not attend the trial, but in handing down the sentence, I assume that the Court received evidence establishing that the death of his friend has caused lifestyle changes for Brent that made the Court believe that he would not drive drunk again. I also understand that Brent could be BSing everyone, and he may drive drunk the day that he completes his 180 day sentence. Hope that Brent has changed his ways and that he will never drive drunk again.
 
And that is definitely also important. But he still avoids paying for what he's already done. I'm more concerned about the law being punitive rather than a deterrent. I believe the deterrent aspect of the law comes from enforcing punishment. All of this is academic, however. It's over and done with and the family signed off so that's that. But don't for a millisecond believe that if Brent wasn't an NFLer with money that this would've been the same repentance notwithstanding. Many people find Jesus after they've fucked up.
 
DaDeacs said:
Happens every day - the cops are the ones that regulate the breathalyzer - and since they aren't "approved" most any lawyer can bring in an expert that can show how faulty the device will be when not properly regulated - this is how 99%* of duis get thrown out.

* - completely made up stat - but it is how most people with money avoid jail time
Click to expand...

Which is why they get the blood test too. not nearly as prone to error as the breathalyzer.
 
Recently in the Outer Banks, a guy only got 3 months jail time for a drunk driving hit and run death of the 20 year old who was riding his bike on the side of the road. The passengers in the car when the driver hit the biker yelled at him and begged him to stop telling him that he had hit a person, but he ignored all of them, went home, and got in bed. The passengers called the cops when they were dropped off and reported the hit and run. The victim was found on the side of the road dead. The cops then went to the house of the driver whose story kept changing about not hitting anything, to hitting something, to the person he hit being fine.

The driver is also in his young 20s and had no previous criminal record. The sentences for these vehicular manslaughter cases are really all over the place and seem to depend on completely random factors.
 
Last edited:
jerry-jones-silverandblueblood.com_.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top