YoungBuck95
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 23,481
- Reaction score
- 5,972
That's embarrassing. 180 days and 10 years probation.
Would post link, but on my phone.
Would post link, but on my phone.
That's embarrassing. 180 days and 10 years probation.
Would post link, but on my phone.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I didn't think rich people went to jail at all when they drove drunk and killed someone.
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