GatewayRedbirds.com

Since when are individuals not held accountable?

Leonard Little asked me the same question.

BW23 wrote:Leonard Little asked me the same question.

That's one example. I can give you tens of thousands of examples of DUIs and/or manslaughter charges being brought. It's extremely disingenuous, not to mention false, to say people aren't held accountable for driving intoxicated.

Perhaps the major sports should adopt zero tolerance - banning from the game for DUI's etc. It is about the only deterrent that I think may help - especially for guys at that age with that kind of money and false notions of indestructiblity.

I believe in this thread you thought he should only be punished for the DUI. I agree that he should be punished to the max for the DUI. Of course, I believe that for anyone, regardless of the circumstance. I have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone that drives after drinking. To then, cause a death because of your already illegal activity...sorry, that shouldn't be swept under the rug.

My whole point is that, regardless of how the two ended up in the car, Brent is responsible for the death of his friend. And, according to reports, did little to nothing to help get his friend out of the car while he was still alive until the car was fully engulfed in flames.

As for being held accountable, I should have added the whole celebrities/sports figures on to that, but there's many more that get off the hook for DUIs and other related offenses. I consider paying a fine and getting probation as getting off the hook. Spending a handful of days in a country club jail is getting off the hook.

I guarantee that for any celebrity/sports figure that was held accountable for a DUI that you can name, I can name 10 that didn't. And I know plenty of people that have received a DUI. Not one of them ended up in jail, except the last one who finally killed someone after judge after judge after judge let him off the hook.

Heck, my brother has had 3 DUIs. I wish he had served time each time. Never has yet.

But I'm sure where we differ is what you and I consider to be held accountable.

Right, he should face DUI charges because he was supposedly driving under the influence.

Brown made the decision to ride with Brent knowing he was drunk, presumably. Ergo, he wasn't a victim and wasn't involuntarily manslaughtered.

If your bro asked you to go to a bar with him, drink all night, then ride home with you, what would you say? IIRC, you don't drink, so you might offer to drive. You might decline. You might offer to pick him up when the bar closes sso he oesn't drive home. But I doubt you'd agree, and if you did, as Brown did, you have no reason to be mad at him for drinking and driving... You know what's going to happen and you know what the risks are.

So, no, I don't think he's a victim of involuntarily manslaughter and therefore don't think Brent should be charged with it. I do, however, think he should be punished and held accountable for DUI and there are laws that allow that to happen.

I also don't think Brent being a coward or a piece of [expletive] is relevant here or should subject him to any excess punishment. Though I do think he's a piece of [expletive].

Drinking and driving isn't a problem, stop making it out to be.

Drinking and crashing is another story entirely.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Brown made the decision to ride with Brent knowing he was drunk, presumably. Ergo, he wasn't a victim and wasn't involuntarily manslaughtered.

Does the law actually work like that, though? I would assume that you could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter if you accidentally kill someone while committing a crime (DUI). Whether the person who died accepted the risk wouldn't be relevant to that. What about charging someone with murder when they kill a rival gang member? Is that person considered a non-victim as they accepted the inherent risk when joining the gang? I agree that killing an innocent bystander is more heinous, but I don't really think that killing a partial participant should be considered a non-crime either.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Right, he should face DUI charges because he was supposedly driving under the influence.

Brown made the decision to ride with Brent knowing he was drunk, presumably. Ergo, he wasn't a victim and wasn't involuntarily manslaughtered.

If your bro asked you to go to a bar with him, drink all night, then ride home with you, what would you say? IIRC, you don't drink, so you might offer to drive. You might decline. You might offer to pick him up when the bar closes sso he oesn't drive home. But I doubt you'd agree, and if you did, as Brown did, you have no reason to be mad at him for drinking and driving... You know what's going to happen and you know what the risks are.

So, no, I don't think he's a victim of involuntarily manslaughter and therefore don't think Brent should be charged with it. I do, however, think he should be punished and held accountable for DUI and there are laws that allow that to happen.

I also don't think Brent being a coward or a piece of [expletive] is relevant here or should subject him to any excess punishment. Though I do think he's a piece of [expletive].

Brown knew that there was a chance that he could die if he got in the car. And he did. He suffered the ultimate consequence for that bad decision. Brent knew that he was drunk and could crash the car and kill his friend. And he did. He should also suffer the ultimate consequence for that bad decision.

Well, in this case and given the ultimate consequence being death, I compeltely disagree that Brent deserves the ultimate consequence.