Everyone get their Affluenza shots?

[archibaldcrane]

Although, when you think of it, is it better for a rich fucker to get a light sentence but then your surviving family gets to successfully sue the shit out of kid's family, or for a poor kid to kill 4 people, get properly punished, but your survivors get no monetary compensation?

[kuronosan]

sure, if you want to go down the slippery slope.

So we're going the didn't know better route.

Well shit.

Some adults don't know better and they still get jailed.

The hell out of here with that.

[Salodin]

Although, when you think of it, is it better for a rich fucker to get a light sentence but then your surviving family gets to successfully sue the shit out of kid's family, or for a poor kid to kill 4 people, get properly punished, but your survivors get no monetary compensation?

I think a good argument could be made for both.

[hey]

Depends on who they kill in their next drunk accident, obviously.

The people being paid are obviously better off being paid than having the person punished, but that doesn't help their next victim if they do it again.

[Serra]

So we're going the didn't know better route.

Well shit.

Some adults don't know better and they still get jailed.

The hell out of here with that.

And if we're gonna argue that teenagers make bad choices without thinking of the consequences, isn't that a defense for the kid responsible for all this?

[BaneTheBrawler]

false equivalency. trusting the wrong person to drive you home isn't the same as driving drunk. one of these things is illegal and has national ad campaigns to that effect, the other is a mistake. not only did he make a mistake literally everyone makes (trusting the wrong person) but he also was incapable of accurately assessing the risks of failure. for which CS wants to deny him all recompense.

[Cream Soda]

but it is illegal to ride in the truck of a bed in Texas (unless the kid was 19 or older). Could say that if he weren't breaking the law, that situation would have never been possible, no?

[hey]

And if we're gonna argue that teenagers make bad choices without thinking of the consequences, isn't that a defense for the kid responsible for all this?

Isn't that why kids get lighter sentences than adults?

[BaneTheBrawler]

you sure? google says otherwise.

V.T.C.A., Transportation Code 545.414. Riding in Open Beds; Offense

(a) A person commits an offense if the person operates an open-bed pickup truck or an open flatbed truck or draws an open flatbed trailer when a child younger than 18 years of age is occupying the bed of the truck or trailer.

(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person was:

(1) operating or towing the vehicle in a parade or in an emergency;

(2) operating the vehicle to transport farmworkers from one field to another field on a farm-to-market road, ranch-to-market road, or county road outside a municipality;

(3) operating the vehicle on a beach;

(4) operating a vehicle that is the only vehicle owned or operated by members of the household;

(5) or operating the vehicle in a hayride permitted by the governing body of or law enforcement agency of each county or municipality in which the hayride will occur.

(a) Compliance or noncompliance with Subsection (a) is not admissible evidence in a civil trial.

(b) In this section, "household" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.005, Family Code.

it's only a crime for the driver, not the passenger. and even if it were, it's still false equivalency in both the legal and moral sense. minor violation vs potential felony, being dumb and being injured by someone else vs being dumb and injuring someone else.

[Cream Soda]

Meh I used google as well but I'll take your results as they're more detailed than what I pulled up. Idc either way if he gets damages, but if they lost I would t feel bad.

[Serra]

I guess part of it to me is the fact that the kid who was in the back of the truck was with the kid who was driving. Admittedly, this is assumption on my part (because I don't think they've said anything one way or another, right?), but I see him as another kid who was involved in stealing beer, drinking underage, and he just happened to not be the kid who grabbed his keys. He was there by choice and willingly participated, and the claim that he's just a teenager who made a bad decision just doesn't have a lot of weight for me. And maybe that's completely wrong, and some of you disagree with that stance, but I don't see this kid as that much of a victim here.

[Ayn]

My contribution to this thread:

http://i.qkme.me/7310.jpg

[Niiro]

Sidenote: wtf @ it being legal to ride in the bed of a truck under any circumstances when it's illegal to not wear a goddamn seatbelt.

[Salodin]

Probably along the lines of the law not catching up to the times. Although I still don't know why seatbelt laws exist, if people want to accept the risk of being in an accident with out a seatbelt on, let them. Their loss.

[Niiro]

Think about the implications that would have on children for a minute and you'll better understand why the laws do (and should) exist.

[Dimmauk]

Texas, what happened to you? If he was 18 you would have put him on death row.

Soon. I hope

[RKenshin]

Think about the implications that would have on children for a minute and you'll better understand why the laws do (and should) exist.

If it's just about the children, why not make the law that? Age 18 or less = buckled up or ticket/fine.

Personally find the enforcement of a law like that to be more of a cash grab than anything. If you're not posing any danger to anyone other than yourself, and you're old enough to understand the ramifications of it, then I have trouble understanding the reasoning behind making it illegal. Same logic applies for marijuana legalization, or really most any drug IMO.

[Niiro]

Comparing seatbelt laws to marijuana legalization is....quite a stretch.

What are the drawbacks of seat belt laws?

And as for the children comment, if a parent is irresponsible enough to not wear a seatbelt (assuming it was legal) does that not leave the impression on kids that they're unnecessary?

[hey]

Comparing seatbelt laws to marijuana legalization is....quite a stretch.

How? The argument is that personal safety should not be legislated. Not wearing a seatbelt poses no real risk to anyone but yourself. If someone wants to put themselves in danger, they should be free to do so, no matter how stupid, as long as they aren't also putting others in danger.

[Salodin]

Comparing seatbelt laws to marijuana legalization is....quite a stretch.

What are the drawbacks of seat belt laws?

And as for the children comment, if a parent is irresponsible enough to not wear a seatbelt (assuming it was legal) does that not leave the impression on kids that they're unnecessary?

Who's the one making the stretch here?

If the person is old enough to make the choice themselves with out affecting others, then why do we have a law against it? Like Rkenshin said, under 18 should be illegal because we like to make laws to protect our children, but once you are a legal adult who is expected to understand the consequences, why is it illegal?

We have the same standards for smoking, alcohol, and a few other things I'm sure. Just because it's smarter to do something doesn't mean it should be illegal to not do it. Then again, I'm only complaining because 'tards not wearing seatbelts would keep some unneeded genes out of the pool.