• bdonvr@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    308
    ·
    1 year ago

    “It’s horrible for everybody. Yeah, I lost my son, it’s harder on our family, but I don’t want the rest of her life ruined too. It isn’t going to make me feel any better,” he said.

    As hard as it is to say something like that… we need more people like this.

    • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      122
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a nice sentiment, but…

      This was premeditated. She needs to be held accountable and have consequences for what she willfully and knowingly did.

      She literally killed people. I’m not sure this can be a case of “forgive and let her off lightly.”

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think he’s saying she shouldn’t be accountable and face consequences. He’s said he didn’t want her to spend life in jail. That’s going to be pretty radical for a lot of folks.

        Some people are going to think that life in prison or the death penalty should be the minimum consequence. Others are going to think that even a monster like this can repent, change and (unlike her victims) be allowed to live free eventually.

        Edit. Yikes. Important typo. “Don’t”

        • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s fair, and I get it. To me, that’s absolutely radical, especially if it was my child who was harmed.

          I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.

          I’m not necessarily calling for her death or anything… but the punishment needs to fit the crime. Two lives are permanently gone from this world because of the careless and stupid choices she made.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.

            Likewise, although my experience is with a racist idiot on a Discord server who I was far too lenient with.

          • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would agree, but I’d argue that that’s because our current system doesn’t actually rehabilitate people, and solely exists to punish people. Which solves practically nothing.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          For me, it’s not about whether or not she can change and repent. I’m all for prison reforms that make prison safe and offer inmates opportunities for growth and self-improvement while they serve their sentences, but I think punishments need to fit crimes and this girl intentionally killed two other people. I think a sentence of 15 years to life is actually a bit lenient (I’m used to 25 years to life being the standard for premeditated murder). I don’t think she should mandatorily have to spend her entire life in prison, but I also don’t think she should get to enjoy even fraction of the life she robbed those two boys of. Ideally, with good behavior, I’d like to see her get out at 45-50 years of age. She would still have a few decades left, but the prime of her life would be gone—no career, no kids. That seems fair to me.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay.

              • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I’m okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it.

                I’d like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don’t think either of us would have said “But surely it can be done in 15.” It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that’s interesting to me.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh it’s completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences.

            • MajorJimmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Means there’s a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years.

          • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            On one hand, yes.

            On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you’d be if you’d waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That’s a whole lot of life and life experience there.

            Such a stupid senseless waste all around.

      • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Being 17, I’d attribute some of the blame to her parents or whomever owns that vehicle.

        Is driving recklessly really the only symptom of being this emotionally deregulated? Did they not know how stupid or mentally ill she is?

        I bet the adults around her did not care or excused her behaviour.

        • SamboT@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 year ago

          I bet her dad was a party clown who was hoping this would happen.

          Like where the fuck do you get all of these assumptions from?

        • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s fine, but she still made a conscious decision to do it. If she was one year older, would that make any kind of difference?

          And let me be clear: mental illness can make some behaviors more understandable, but not murder– if the blame is put solely on mental illness, all that does is put more stigma on it. Not every shitty decision people make is because of “mental illness”.

            • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure you know what the word “reactionary” means if you think that my comments and opinions were “reactionary”.

              The family can grieve, and my opinion has no bearing on the outcome of whatever happens. My point was, in the end, no matter what the reason, there needs to be consequences for someone who killed people, regardless of what the grieving parties think. I don’t think that’s particularly radical.

              It’s a sad and awful situation al around. I can see why those poor families just want to move on.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did they not know how stupid or mentally ill she is?

          Just want to shout out here as an anxious and depressed person, the vast majority of the mentally ill are not psychopathic murderers. Mental health absolutely pays a role in decision making, but except for super extremely rare cases, it doesn’t turn someone into a murderer.

    • Dimok@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah man. I can say I would like to think I would be that forgiving of a person, but I probably wouldn’t.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    154
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t believe I’m being held responsible for my actions!!

    If this were a case of a young driver who was driving irresponsibly fast and lost control of the car, killing their friends, that would be one thing. This is a 17 year old who repeatedly threatened her boyfriend with killing him while driving in the weeks before the accident, who made no attempt to avoid/stop ramming at full speed into a large building.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah like, this wasn’t an accident. This was willfully killing someone. If she shot or repeatedly stabbed him, I don’t think you’d see the same sentiment. Something about hitting them with a mass of metal at high speeds is more sympathetic, because death by car strikes us at less violent.

      • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be incredibly proud of my mother if she could do that. Not many are capable of having empathy when someone they love is the victim.

              • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                …you don’t think she gave thought to the other people victimized? Even with one of the victims being her own child?

                I’d bet my life that she’s put significantly more thought into this than either of us could possibly imagine, and that calling her a narcissist is simply closed-minded and pathetic. She’s a grieving mother ffs.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    1 year ago

    During the investigation, she asked if they could just suspend her license for 10 years

    “I just killed two people with a car, so I think being forced to use Uber for a decade is an appropriate sentence.”

    • Overzeetop@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      155
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a shame she’s not a male athlete with a promising swimming career. Might have gotten off with having to take a remedial driving course and paid a small fine.

    • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, if she hadn’t threaded to kill her boyfriend with her car before this happened, then I think suspending her license for a decade or two or may be life would be the right solution. Prison shouldn’t be a punishment, but a way to keep everyone else safe from dangerous people. If she won’t drive, then she isn’t a danger. But it sounds like she’s dangerous no matter what.

        • derpo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Agreed. I wish the USA had this point of view, but instead we do view it as an oubliette to put people we dont like / are too poor

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but mercy and rehabilitation should not come at the expense of the innocent.

          Plus, when I think rehabilitating people in jail, I’m thinking of nonviolent offenses. Premeditated murder isn’t on my list of crimes I think someone can come back from, not when it’s like this.

        • Elderos@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Prison helps keep people safe, create deterrent, prevents vigilantism. Rehabilitation is the humane thing to do, but it is not why we isolate criminals.

      • Wollang@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        The trial featured surveillance video played in court showing the moment Shirilla accelerated towards the building without stopping, until a gut-wrenching crash is heard.

        Anyone capable of doing this deserves prison time.

        • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed. We know she did it on purpose and is a dangerous person in general, not just a careless or even reckless driver. She needs to be in prison to keep us safe. Shes different than someone who is merely a bad driver, or even a reckless driver who just needs to be kept out of a car to keep everyone around them safe.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Prison shouldn’t be a punishment

        Yes, it absolutely should be. I can’t stand people who think the criminal justice system shouldn’t dole out punishments, but should only aim to rehabilitate people. You folks have absolutely no empathy for victims. Punishments are important, because criminals cause suffering to other people. The entire concept of justice is based on the idea that criminals should suffer at least a modicum of the harm they do to others as payment for their crimes. Over the centuries, we have done away with the “eye for an eye” model of punishment and decided that the worst sentences we can hand down are execution and life in prison, and most people today aren’t actually in favor of execution. Spending your life in prison is a slap on the wrist compared to being murdered.

        I’m sure this girl could be rehabilitated within a few years. Under your model, she’d walk free while the parents and siblings of her victims were still trying to recover mentally from what she did to their families. Your lack of empathy for them is repugnant. You should feel ashamed.

        • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Seems like you are blending the concepts of punishment and that of revenge. While a criminal, who’s crime has been proved in court should absolutely be punished for the crimes he/she committed according to the corresponding law, the sentences should not be led or even influenced by the feeling of “taking revenge for the victims”, because that’s not what a punishment should be about.

          I guess this is one of the main differences between judicial systems and their underlying philosophies in the US and in Europe. While in the US the state can kill / execute some person, because this person has killed another person, that would be unthinkable in Europe, because the state does not have such a “right” and killing / executing a murderer would also be a crime against that person’s life.

          European systems are more driven by the idea of “resocialising” criminals, so that they could eventually become acceptable members of society again some day.

  • golamas1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just remember Ethan Couch in 2013 diagnosed with Afluenza, A condition where someone is too rich to understand the consequences of their actions.

    He was 16. He and a bunch of friends went to Walmart. They stole beer and drove drunk. He killed 4 people on the side of the road. A passenger in his car suffered brain damage and was paralyzed.

    This kid was sentenced with a 10 year parole. He violated that parole by going to a party to drink. He and his mom fled to Mexico to avoid punishment. He was captured and then given a 720 day sentence in prison.

    He murdered 4 people and paralyzed one of his friends. He got parole. Violated parole. Fled the country. And then was given 2 years in prison.

    • Shush@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is how you know that being rich sets you up for life. It doesn’t matter what they’ll do - it’ll end up a slap on the wrist at best. The system is unjust and corrupt.

    • Anoncow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Reading the article, the driver seems to have purposely accelerated into the building with the intention to kill her boyfriend.

      Both are shitty but I would think this is worse

      • cnut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One teenager chose to drive drunk and he killed 4 people. This teenager got in a fight with her boyfriend (presumably) and killed 2 people.

        Can you explain what’s worse?

        • Clusterfck@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Intent.

          Driving drunk is absolutely stupid and anyone who does should be punished. The kids a shithead and deserved about 10 times more the prison sentence he got, but he did not start the night planning to kill 4 people with his friends. It was an accident, completely and absolutely preventable and one he is solely responsible for and should have gone to prison for his negligence, but an accident.

          This girl told her boyfriend she would kill him this exact way. She had this planned. She drove by that same place earlier. She got in that car knowing it was going to to end the way it did.

        • Wollff@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course. That’s easy.

          Only one person in those examples intended to kill someone, and then followed through with the plan. Murder is worse than unintentionally killing and hurting people through negligence.

          It’s really easy to explain.

  • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    A haiku about this comment section:

    Healthy mind? Minor? We don’t rehabilitate In the USA

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look I’m all for rehabilitation, but she’s 19 currently, which places her at 16-17 for the murder, without doing more research. By all means, she should receive psychiatric care and rehabilitation should be attempted, but we shouldn’t have our hopes up. And while that’s going on, she must be kept imprisoned – mercy should not come at the expense of the innocence. Someone who makes a threat and then consciously speeds up to kill someone with a car is dangerous to society.

      Something else I’ve come to learn is that unfortunately, punishment is necessary. Someone who’s prone to angry outbursts of racism and hate needs to understand that it’s absolutely unacceptable and they need to change. If you keep giving them a slap on the wrist each time, they won’t take it seriously, as compassionate as you are and as much as you try to convince them to change their ways.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I went through some pretty turbulent relationship shit when I was that young. One time my girlfriend was so mad at me she opened the car door while we were traveling at freeway speed. She didn’t jump, but still… I feel like I brushed up against this level of crazy even in just the course of my rather average teenage years.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I was wondering if I was the only one thinking “mentally unfit and not even a legal adult.”

      People are all on fire about the fact that she threatened it beforehand therefore it’s open and shut murder. But crazy people are capable of making threats.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Ohio teenager dubbed “hell on wheels” — who was convicted of intentionally crashing her car at 100 mph into a building, killing her boyfriend and his friend — was sentenced to two concurrent 15 years to life sentences Monday.

    Judge Russo shared blistering remarks and condemned Shirilla’s actions saying: “She had a mission, and she executed it with precision. The mission was death.”

    Judge Russo said in handing down her verdict remarks that Shirilla was “literal hell on wheels,” saying she intentionally drove at an hour when not many witnesses would be around, on a path she didn’t routinely use but had visited days before.

    Prosecutors argued in the trial that Shirilla had become turbulent and threatening towards her boyfriend and crashed to end their relationship.

    • bioemerl@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      1 year ago

      Misleading as hell titles for this running around. I thought she was just driving fast based on what I saw in the headlines last week. She totally deserves the murder charges.

      • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, causing a crash and killing someone in the process of speeding is still deserving of a murder sentence.

        • Dimok@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I believe stateside it’s called ‘manslaughter’ in a case such as that. Manslaughter is “the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.” So no, it wouldn’t be deserving of a murder sentence… Edit: Unless the jury or judge deemed it so, of course.

          • Dultas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            To make matters even more confusing it all depends on state. Most have manslaughter and for a couple it would be 3rd degree murder.

  • Otakulad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am absolutely floored that she survived too. Was she the only one wearing a seatbelt?

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is she eligible for release if she’s found guilty of two murders? Or 15 years rather than something like 40? Murder is one of the few things I think should carry a punitive sentence rather than rehab.

      • Intralexical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t think people can ever change, eh?

        In this case, you’re betting future people’s lives on a known murderer changing.

        Disclaimer: I’m neither for nor against that.

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I’d rather a known murder have the opportunity to change and potentially be a better person than to only let them rot in a fucked up punitive system.

          • Intralexical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            A chance to change, sure. But it would be a mistake to pretend it’s not also a chance to kill again. And it turns out people actually can’t change, meaningfully, without remorse for their past deeds— And you can’t ever actually know whether they feel that. Mercy feels very good until you realize ten years later how much pain you could have avoided otherwise.

            Also, you’re presenting a false dichotomy between “Set them loose on the world” versus “Isolation and torture for the rest of their life”.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s unacceptable to put innocent people at risk in order to give a convicted violent criminal mercy. It’s very easy to say they should be released on good behavior when you live hundreds of miles away. Unless someone is willing to live as that person’s roommate or neighbor, I think it’s completely hypocritical to chastise others for supporting incarceration.

              • Intralexical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Somebody’s damned no matter what. The victim deserves justice. The survivors deserve peace. The perpetrator deserves a chance to do better. And the rest of us deserve safety.

                And these things cannot be reconciled. But I’m not willing to just give upon on any of them. So yes, if you could guarantee that it would give us a decent shot at having all of these things, I would be willing and honoured to live as that person’s neighbour or roommate. ..I’ve repeatedly made decisions before in my life that I think prove this, without even realising it. My life is worth less too if theirs is ruined, and I don’t actually innately care about my own safety if I think I can help someone else.

                But nobody can currently guarantee that. So, I honestly don’t care anymore. Lock them up for good and throw away the key, or kill the survivors too and then kill me too for good measure; I don’t care. Just don’t make me choose who to damn, because what I want to see is for the victim to be alive, not avenged, and for the criminal to be helped, not brutally crushed— but we can’t have that anyway.

                And Ffs, don’t let a known dangerous criminal have the chance to kill again and pretend it’s just mercy or kindness or whatever without a dangerous level of foolishness behind it while condescending at anyone who would want to see a more cautious approach. And don’t pretend that ruining one more life for some perverse ideal of “punishment” or revenge is going to fix anything either.

                This is a shitty situation, and we’ve already lost to end up in it. People have already been hurt, and no matter what you choose, more people are probably going to end up being hurt before it’s over. Pretending mercy will magically fix everything is almost just as stupid and evil as pretending “punishment” serves any moral purpose other than cruelty.


                …I’d want some kind of mercy for the man or woman who murders me. But it’s not my place to demand it for someone else’s killer, who may well go around being a threat to more and more people.

                • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t actually innately care about my own safety if I think I can help someone else.

                  It’s important that I address this if nothing else. If you truly want to be a help for someone else, you need to value your safety. You need to care about yourself. If you get killed helping person A, then what about person B or C who comes afterwards and would’ve benefited exceptionally from your help? If you want to serve, you need to serve yourself too.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Giving them a chance to change is very different than granting leniency. She should have a serious opportunity at rehabilitation, but she shouldn’t be free in society unless you’d feel safe leaving her with your loved ones unattended.

        We should grant mercy as often as we can, but it can never come at the expense of the innocent. I’d rather let a murderer who has genuinely changed die in prison than release a supposedly changed murderer who kills again. I’m certainly not volunteering to be that person’s neighbor if they’re released on good behavior.

        • Kythtrid@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We should grant mercy as often as we can, but it can never come at the expense of the innocent.

          You’re presenting a pretty idealized version of our justice system, i think. A big part of why I support leniency is because of how often our justice system gets it wrong. It’s crazy to think that bad luck and low social standing can cost you most of your life. Any punishment meant for violent criminals will inevitably target a substantial number of innocents or nonviolent offenders. It’s wishful thinking to believe our justice system is usually “just”. We should strive to help the victims feel vindicates as much as possible, but it will inevitably, usually come at the expense of the innocent.

    • Iteria@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I imagine it’s her age. She wasn’t even legally an adult, not that that excuses it. Losing all her 20s and most of her 30s basically means if she does get out at exactly 15 years she’s probably much screwed her whole life even setting aside the felony on her record. Her life will look nothing like she imagined.

      • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s even ignoring what being in prison for that long will do to you mentally. From what I’ve heard, it’s almost a whole other world in there.

        I can’t imagine getting out after spending 15 years of my life in prison, and being able to keep the same quirks and mannerisms. Everything is just different. It’s tough for fully grown adults to transition through, let alone someone who spent the last half of their teens.

        That being said, neither of those two dead people will ever get to see a sunrise again. They’ll never get to feel the wind on their face, or tell their parents that they love them. For what?

        Intentionally murdering innocent people is despicable and soulless. I hope that they give her a lot of therapy and mental help in there. What a tragic end for such young lives.

    • STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has been statistically proven that white women get easier sentences than men of any race. Her age also probably played in to that.

  • pwnstar@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It took police 45 minutes to get to the scene of the crash… fucking what?

  • Dimok@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey so kind of off topic, but did anyone else read this and think this might be a problem? - “Police arrived to the scene around 45 minutes later.”

    • hypelightfly@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By itself? No.

      It does not say “Police arrived 45 minutes after it was reported”. From that statement alone we have no idea how long between the crash and someone seeing it and reporting.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also that’s police, not EMS. I don’t really care if police arrive at all as long as EMS gets there quickly. They can always call for police too.

        • doggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this case that’s fair, but in some cases, particularly attempted murders, EMS may have to wait for police to ensure the scene is safe for them to work in anyway. Not to mention most police have at least some first aid training. Police response times are also very important.

    • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did you read the part about it being very early in the morning? Who do you think is calling the police? The dead victims?

      Come on. You must be a little smarter than that, it’s all in the article…

      • Dimok@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I always enjoy when people lash out with ‘you must be smarter’ troll bait from a simple observation. Side note; I’ve stayed in Strongsville many times when traveling for work in Cleveland. It’s not a huge burb by any means, and it’s also not ‘empty’ or completely devoid of life. I certainly wouldn’t think there were areas I could crash my car and not have anyone report it over half an hour. FYI I’m only replying to you to hopefully educate you. If you pop your mouth off with more trollish bullshit it’s just going to be insta ignore. But by all means…

    • visak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Luck, car engineering, and medical science. She was seriously injured. Was she trying to kill herself, I have no idea. Clearly needs mental health treatment which she’s not likely to get in prison. Not that I think she should be free either.

    • PagingDoctorLove@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I don’t get it either. Even if she’s got a serious mental health condition, the odds of her not understanding that everyone in that car was likely to die are slim to none. Being unbalanced enough to be willing to end your own life, but not so unbalanced that you’ve already been committed or ostracized by your loved ones, is just so hard for me to comprehend.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The vast majority of teenagers are fine and require transportation to get to work/school. I wouldn’t argue against restrictions on passengers but completely stripping them of driving would fuck up so many things. How does a 18-21 year old get back and forth to college without a car for example?

      • セリャスト
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Public transportation is the standard here in europe for that kind of stuff, almost nobody among my classmate come by car. They all use the tramway, busses or bikes

        • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Congratulations. We aren’t even close to being able to do that where I live. The closest college is 20 miles away.

            • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              8 year olds go to school in the same town they live in and the school district has busses to go pick them up or their parents can go drop them off quickly. The same can’t be said for a student going to a college in a different town/city there’s not going to be a public transportation option that just goes straight to their school or to their job from school or whatever they need to do. They might be able to accomplish it by switching busses a couple times or something but that will add a ton of time to their commute. It’s not practical.

              On top of that, pushing the driving age back will just result in a bunch of inexperienced 18/21 year old drivers and we’ll be having the same conversation about them after a few years go by.

    • Shush@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t matter what age is it. It’s not like people suddenly stop being reckless and careless at 21. I’ve heard enough horror stories of people who are way ahead of legal age doing dangerous stuff.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Germany you can drink beer before you can drive a car. Usually people still will kill people with a car when they are old enough to drive. Drunk or not.

  • MsPenguinette
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hadn’t heard of this case before but damn, when a judge gives you concurrent cause they think you’re the type of person to get time added onto your sentence is damming af

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The sentence was 15 years to life, implying that in order for her to get out she will need to be paroled. She won’t get out automatically. The judge’s statements are on the record now so it is very unlikely, even if she is a model prisoner, that they will grant her parole in 15 years. Probably more like 20-25.

      I feel for the father of the boyfriend. While clearly grieving for his son, he made a statement that he didn’t want her in jail for life, because it’s not like it would fix anything.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-teen-100-mph-crash-father-boyfriend-life-prison-rcna100635

      • BananaTrifleViolin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m torn on that, it comes down to motive. If it was an accident then she shouldn’t be going to jail at all. If it was deliberate as contended - she was charged with murder after all - then it’s shocking and strays into pathological territory - in which case should she ever be released?

        I think the father would be right if it had been involuntary manslaughter but to be charged with murder for a car crash is highly unusual. Having said that it’s possible this was an inappropriate charge and judgement and might get overturned on appeal.

        Strange case.

        • galaxies_collide@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you read the article? She threatened to do it multiple times on previous days. She then scoped out the site she would do it at before she actually did it. 100% premeditated murder.

        • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Strange case.

          She was tried with two counts of murder. She was found guilty of two counts of murder.

          At what point did you become all confused and unsure of things?

      • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What does that actually mean “15 years to life”? A minimum of 15 years with the possibility to be released on parole for the first time after 15 years and - if she doesn’t get it - she could also spend her whole life in prison? I didn’t understand the addition “to life” in the sentence.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The sentence the judge handed down is 15 years in prison at minimum. “To life” implies no maximum limit to it.

          After the 15 years is up, she can apply for parole, and her case will go to a parole board, where they will evaluate whether she has served enough time in prison and now shows remorse, as well as any indication she can integrate back into society. (I think the victim’s families can also offer input if they want). If the board agrees, they may grant her parole, and let her leave prison, but with conditions attached that could send her back if she violates them. And with no maximum to the term, even if she were let out she can be subject to those conditions for the rest of her life.

          If the parole board declines her application, she will be able to apply again in a few years. Even if she is a model citizen in prison, the board would be within its rights to say “You need to serve more time to answer for your crimes before we can parole you”. And since there is no maximum to the sentence, they can keep saying that for as long as they want to.

          • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Seems like you are pretty much at the mercy of that parole board then. Are there any rules they base their judgement on, or is it just their personal “gut feeling”? I once saw a documentary about an (in-)famous prison in Louisiana (“The Farm”) where the parole board knew what they would say (from internal discussions before hearing the inmate) before he would even report to them. And when he would get a “no”, it meant another five years of waiting…

            In Europe / Germany you can get a parole (probation) after serving 2/3 of your sentence, if a court decides that you are no threat to society anymore and unlike to commit further crimes, unless the court decided on “severe guilt” for special crimes (like serial killers / rapers), where a parole / probation can be excluded.

            EDIT: so, in Germany with that sentence she would most likely leave prison at the age of 29, being able to start a new life, if it’s unlikely that she would commit the same or a similar crime again (of course not possible if a psychiatrist diagnoses her to be a threat to society). I know that she took two lives, but if she rots in prison, it will not make them alive again either.

            • dhork@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Rules will vary from state to state in the US, but yes, if she wants to get out she will have to figure out what the Parole Board wants to see from her, and do those things over the 15+ years she will be in prison. But even then, the nature of her crime (and any statements the victims families will choose to give) will factor in. It would not surprise me at all if the parole board just issues blanket denials to the first applications for murder convictions.

              And yes, like all systems, it has been abused in the past, but some states seem to be trying to improve it. There is no uniform set of qualifications to serve on these boards, and I bet some states pad the board with rhe Governor’s friends. According to the Wiki article on parole boards, though, some states mandate that at least one ex-convict needs to be on the board.

              • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Interesting, those differences in justice systems. Over here, the “parole board” is always a (professional) district judge (or a group of judges, depending on the case), and the victim families or other persons outside of the judicial system normally have no stakes or say here.

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Concurrent = at the same time

      Consecutive = one after another

      Concurrent is almost always the better deal.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve never understood that. How is serving sentences concurrently at all the same punishment? Are there cases where someone has two sentences that can be ruled either to serve consecutively or concurrently? Who makes that decision and what goes into it?

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          The idea is to make sure that there isn’t an unjust stacking of time due to many little crimes being committed during a larger crime. As an example, let’s say a first time offender breaks into a bank and tries to rob it. If they applied the maximum for each individual crime, it is easy for the punishment to balloon into something that is much worse than the crime itself calls for—trespassing + robbery + destruction of property + whatever else you did = 80+ years for a first time offense.

          When the judge chooses to have the sentences run concurrently, the prisoner will serve the longest sentence they have gotten for one of the crimes, but will still have all the crimes on their record. This gives them a greater possibility to be released after a more reasonable amount of time (10-20 years), which gives them a chance of rehabilitation and reduces the burden on the taxpayer to house people for very long amounts of time.

          It is worth remembering that some people who commit crimes early in life go on to be productive and admirable citizens. Stephen Fry did time for fraud as a teenager, and then went on to be a beloved actor and writer. Sometimes those skills can be turned around to do good.

      • MsPenguinette
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed. What I intended when I said that was that the judge thought consecutive wouldn’t even be needed because she’s going to be spending way more than 15 in prison.

        A dig simular to if a judge only fined someone $1k instead of $10 and saying “you still won’t be able to pay 1k”

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I dont know why I subbed to this shit, but it certainly wasn’t to learn about random fucking misery in Ohio

    yes this is very sad and awful. I don’t give a shit. don’t want to see this kind of stuff.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a beacon of sunshine you are. Nothing stopped you from just scrolling past if you didn’t want to read it, or unsubbing/blocking it. For someone who doesn’t give a shit, you sure had to let everyone know you don’t.

      • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes because I’m pissed that yall sharing this fucking misery. Why? Why do any of you want to read this? Why?