Skip to comments.
Pair get 8 years for serving beer at party
Washington Times ^
| 2-12-03
| Washington Times
Posted on 02/12/2003 11:35:45 PM PST by ambrose
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:39:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
CHARLOTTESVILLE (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: absurdsentence; alcohol; beer; friendsnotparents; irresponsibleparent; minorinposession; palsnotguardians; stupidparents; underagedrinking; whackjobjudge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 241-244 next last
To: ambrose
I honestly don't know if I can raise children here if this is how the courts behave now.
To: sox_the_cat
The article says 6 months per count served consecutively. 16 counts, 8 years.I guess they should be happy. Since they served up to 80 kids, they could've gotten 40 years.
To: ambrose
This verdict makes me sick and pissed off at the psyco legislatures who push such laws.
To: Bonaparte
They'll probably be out in about two and a half years. It doesn't work that way in Virginia.
144
posted on
02/13/2003 8:19:29 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: RabidBartender
To me, this was the 2nd publicized underage drinking incident in as many months, and the judge came down hard on it to send a message. Do you think 8 years was a more fitting sentence than the prosecutor's recommendation for 90 days?
145
posted on
02/13/2003 8:20:55 AM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: TLBSHOW; All
This thread clearly exposes the broad philisophical spectrum of thought that really exist at FR
Whether the punishment rendered is right or wrong, it certainly is a good argument for creating strict sentencing guidelines for criminal activity. Of course the lawyers lobby would never allow that to happen
I would wager if the parents knew these would be the possible consequences they never would have done what they did.
As a conservative I agree actions have consequences. As a conservative I also belief in justice. The scales are not balanced in this case.
146
posted on
02/13/2003 8:21:26 AM PST
by
Magoo
To: apillar
Sounds like the judge was trying to make a "tough on crime" political statement from the bench probably up for reelection soon.No, the judge is appointed, not elected.
147
posted on
02/13/2003 8:23:01 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: TLBSHOW
United Kingdom 5-drink,16-buyGotta admit, 5 seems a little too early. :-)
To: TheConservator
These parents apparently made one stupid mistake. They do not appear to be career criminals. Just the embarassment and the cost of dealing with the criminal conviction would be enough to deter most normal people from ever doing anything remotely like this again. They do not appear to pose any kind of continuing threat. But they get 8 years? No way. They deserved about 30 days in jail, and maybe about 2 years worth of community service with an anti drug/alcohol component. But the lengthy consecutive sentences the judge imposed will not do either them, or society, any good.
As a member of the Virginia Bar, I wholeheartedly agree.
149
posted on
02/13/2003 8:24:23 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: Cultural Jihad
I never said they should not get a consequence for their actions, but 8 years? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
150
posted on
02/13/2003 8:25:59 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: MEGoody
"I would never let my son or daughter attend a party like this."
Well you are parsing out what I am saying. The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at parties. I personnally would never allow children to attend such parties. Period.
Only school sanctioned parties would be allowed.
Of course American culture is not like in Europe where you can walk into any bar and see teens sitting at the tables and drinking beer together.
I think I have made my point that parents today are mostly derelict in their duty.
They rely too much upon the state to raise their children.
To: ambrose
"She wasn't even cold in the ground."And she's still not as cold as the judge in this case.
A hefty fine for a first violation would have been well sufficient. But this? This is ridiculous. The judge has done more harm for separating the parents from their children than "protecting" the teenagers.
152
posted on
02/13/2003 8:30:11 AM PST
by
A2J
(From my cold, dead hands...)
To: Byron_the_Aussie
'For the children'... 'if it saves one life'... get back to the village, Hillary.If the world were a just place only you and your children would get killed or crippled by teenage drivers who became drunk by the irresponsible actions of parents such as these scofflaws that you defend.
However, all of us are at risk--not just the defenders of such gross irresponsibility.
To: A2J
The judge has done more harm for separating the parents from their children than "protecting" the teenagers
THAT IS WHAT THE JOB OF LIBERAL JUDGES IS
154
posted on
02/13/2003 8:35:22 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
To: MrLeRoy
I think 8 years was too much. I think 90 days was too little. I am neither a judge nor a prosecutor, but I think the judge was doing what was legally in his purview. People may disagree with the reasoning behind it, but it was still procedurally and legally correct.
But even if he gave them 90 days, there would likely be those who claimed that was too much. Or 60. Or 30.
Anyone know what the punishment is for convienence stores selling liqour or tobacco to underage kids? Or is that a state-by-state statute?
To: RabidBartender
To me, this was the 2nd publicized underage drinking incident in as many months, and the judge came down hard on it to send a message. Ooooh...that nazi. I see. So, for example, if there is a well-publicized case about illegal firearm sales, the judge should really come down hard on all subsequent firearm sales. Sure.
This collective guilt baloney has got to go.
To: ColdSteelTalon
The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at partiesDoes that include the parents that provided the alcohol to the 60 or so teenagers at this party? These kids likely didn't walk or ride horses to the party. These parents knowingly and willfully sent dozens of bombs rolling along the freeways of the community. It is small comfort that no one died.
They should serve at least two years of their sentences, IMO.
To: ColdSteelTalon
"The point is, is that parents are responsible for checking to make sure that alcohol is not going to be served at parties."
And how does one absolutely ensure this? Ask your kids? Call and ask the parents? (huh,huh,yeah, we be serving booze at duh party, why?)
I'm glad you wouldn't KNOWINGLY allow your kid to attend a party where alcohol was being served. Neither would I. But the fact remains, you just aren't always going to know.
Only school sanctioned parties should be allowed? Well, that's fine if you want to restrict your kids to that. I think it's kind of hard line, however, not to allow your kids to attend a friend's birthday party, but that's up to you.
158
posted on
02/13/2003 8:39:58 AM PST
by
MEGoody
To: PBRSTREETGANG
I guess they should be happy. Since they served up to 80 kids, they could've gotten 40 years.It would be nice to have more information about this. Did they indiscriminately serve all of these toddlers in their cribs, or just the few quasi-adult high school graduates?
Obviously they broke the law, but eight years sounds a little over the top.
To: ColdSteelTalon
"those minors did not know what they were doing because they are under 18 years of age. See the law says so then it must be right."
Actually, for every law that states it is illegal to give alcohol to a minor, there is a law that holds that teen responsible for underage drinking. Just because these parents got jail time for serving alcohol to minors doesn't mean the kids didn't get any punishment from the law as well.
160
posted on
02/13/2003 8:41:44 AM PST
by
MEGoody
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 241-244 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson