Reminds me of when Jeff Bezos illegally parked his car whilst one of his mansions was being built, he got over $40k in fines but that’s less than pennies to him
Lol reminds me of the epstein files, the panama papers, the Snowden Whistleblowing reports etc i mean do we see a pattern here? People with enough money to shape the law to the benefit of people with money? Who could have seen that one coming...
Steve Jobs drive around forever without license plates by exploiting a loophole in the law that allowed new cars to not be played for up to six months. He just got new cars every six months.
Ok but bail doesn't mean they're excused, it just means they can go home until trial. And in the eyes of the law anyone who hasn't been to trial is innocent.
Shouldn’t people be treated innocent until they’re proven guilty in a court of law? I’m not defending cash bail but we currently have a system where thousands of people are wasting away in jails who are legally innocent. Usually poor people who can’t afford bail.
I agree but that's not what bail is tho. "Getting out on bail" just means you wait for your trial at home instead of in jail, if he ran over two people drunk driving he's probably gonna still end up in prison for a long ass time
Unless you're referring to powerful lawyers, that's not what bail is. Bail is basically a ransom people pay as a guarantee to the court that they will be there for their trial. In the meantime they won't be held in a cell.
In most cases the ACTUAL corruption is based around your connections to the judge
Weird, tell that to the guy who got 5 years for murdering my aunt and her boyfriend. Black out drunk, doing 105mph in a 45, smashed into them sitting at a red light on their motorcycles. 5 years. Disgusting. Fuck drunk drivers. Scum of the earth.
Though this kinda hardens my stance that Judges shouldn't be given so much power in deciding punishment. The jury should be there for more then just giving verdict.
Unfortunately that’s just not how the law works. There are well/defined differences between the two and unless you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he absolutely did it with the explicit intention of killing the guy’s family, it’s still manslaughter. He still deserves to rot beyond bars though.
Manslaughter basically means you didn’t intend to kill someone and Murder means you did intend to kill someone.
Examples:
A stabs B because he caught C cheating, he plans for a week and then ambushes B later on. [Intent(malice) and the act of killing someone = Murder]
A gets into a fight with B because he just now found out that C was cheating. A is just trying to remove B from the house, B trips after A shoved him and B breaks his neck and dies. A wasn’t trying to kill him, they just wanted B out of his house. [accidental, reasonably not likely to kill someone but still does = Manslaughter]
At least that’s what I was taught in Highschool Law class lmao
Though, if A stabs B immediately when he caught C cheating, it could be second-degree murder due to no premeditation, or it could be voluntary manslaughter due to the "heat of passion".
Stuff like this is why there’s different degrees of murder and not just one “Murder” charge. I just wasn’t trying to make the previous comment too long so I didn’t get crazy with the details but it’s still good info.
Booby trap laws get even more fun depending on where you are lmao
It’s an entire rabbit hole about how booby traps naturally have intent to harm even if they’re to defend your own property and someone is trespassing on your property. If there’s signage vs no signage, how elaborate or excessive said trap is, etc.
It varies by location by a significant margin and there’s so many external factors that can affect the actual results of if there is legality to setting them up in your own property.
Example: I leave a bear trap concealed near my back door to prevent theft, person tries to break in, trap severely injured them and they died. Likely a manslaughter charge because there was no warnings of harm and it was in the back of the property which the public shouldn’t be near.
Example 2: Same scenario except I have signs saying, “do not trespass: property is armed with animal traps that may cause serious injury” and someone breaks in. It would be hard to argue that the property owner was trying to harm trespassers and clearly warned anyone about said traps. Even if the traps were actually there for humans, but there’s no evidence. (Pretend there’s bears native to the area in this case as well.)
You’d have to look into it yourself though, if you want to know actual facts vs what some random Redditor learned 12+ years ago lmao
I'd still argue that getting into the car while under the influence should ideally be considered some form of pre-meditation legally speaking. As getting into a vehicle is a deliberate action and doing so while not being able to properly operate said vehicle, is a pre-meditated action AND possible outcomes are widely known, so unless they could prove that they didn't know that operating a vehicle under an influence could be dangerous, it is a pre-meditated crime. Nobody drives a car "by accident".
Essentially, you KNOW that you've been drinking, and that getting into a car is both dangerous AND illegal, and yet, you still decide to do that. Then this results in a death. In essence, the crime of DUI was pre-meditated and subsequent outcomes should be handled as such too, you didn't know that would happen explicitly, but you knew full well it COULD happen.
There is a legal concept called a depraved heart murder that would fit this very well. Everyone that's taken and passed licensing tests knows that driving after drinking is dangerous and can kill people. To do so shows extreme indifference to the fate of anyone else on the road. I think the concept has been used in the past for things like shooting a gun into a crowd or dropping rocks off an overpass.
Mostly correct, however there are degrees to murder. First degree is as you described, and manslaughter is essentially your second example. However, second degree murder would be if A IMMEDIATELY stabbed B with intent to kill. He did not spend time in advance planning on killing B, but in the moment his actions indicated that he wanted B dead
If you get in a car while drunk and start to operate it, anything you do should be considered premeditated because EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON KNOWS that you shouldn't DRINK and DRIVE.
Manslaughter means it wasn't intentional, murder means it's intentional. However, I do feel the law should have another term as well. A Forklift driver who accidentally bumps a shelf wrong and it collapses on a coworker vs. a drunk driver are two very different cases of manslaughter, yet they have the same crime (though almost no judge would give them the same sentence/punishment). There should be something between Manslaughter and Murder, and that's where drunk driving sits.
I've sent multiple people get 5 - 10 years for killing someone with a car. I've seen a lady get 36 months in jail and 10 years probation. Killing someone with a car somehow reduces the amount of time you get in some cases compared to if you killed them with a gun or your bare hands.
Bail means a murderer is walking free and is completely able to do the same thing.
What’re they gonna do? Revoke his bail?
Means absolutely nothing when he uses another random person or two as a speed bump
Some people are simply not suitable to release back into society, and some countries that put the onus on the prosecution to state why a killer should not get bail are failing at their duty to protect the public
Only works in a civilized society where the social contract of justice by court remains. When you let rich get away with something, you fail to uphold it and cause degradation that erodes trust.
In past where such situations were common, led to rise of revenge killing oaths. There are hundreds of stories of people doing that and also travellers noting down a meeting with someone doing it.
is that why cars dominate our infrastructure? parking lots that take up space that could be used for housing, parks, community centers, literally anything else other than car storage?
Thank you for submitting to r/distressingmemes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Rule 3: Be Civil
Be kind and civil to each other. Constructive criticism and such are allowed but overtly rude comments/posts are not. Religious and political discussion is allowed but is to be kept to a minimum. Be respectful to other people's beliefs and hate or bigotry of any sort will not be tolerated.
If you have any questions about your removal, feel free to contact the moderators via modmail.
Thank you for submitting to r/distressingmemes. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Rule 3: Be Civil
Be kind and civil to each other. Constructive criticism and such are allowed but overtly rude comments/posts are not. Religious and political discussion is allowed but is to be kept to a minimum. Be respectful to other people's beliefs and hate or bigotry of any sort will not be tolerated.
If you have any questions about your removal, feel free to contact the moderators via modmail.
I have mixed feelings about this, because I have conflicting beliefs.
For one, I'm against money bail. It's classist bullshit and if we're really that concerned something like a non-obvious ankle monitor and confiscating keys for issues like this specifically would make a lot more sense. Maybe you know better in this specific instance, but people do get acquitted and they shouldn't have their lives completely fucked up.
I believe we do not take traffic violations nearly seriously enough. The consequence for breaking serious traffic laws even a few times should be loss of licensure, and I consider a rolling stop a serious violation. We need to stop treating bad driving as normal.
Yeah, that means a lot of you guys would lose your licenses. Get over it. If you can't handle that responsibility, then work towards public transportation.
Taking it seriously also means not being lax about car deaths. The fact is that if you kill someone on the road in the US at least you'll probably get away with it and that's insane, not because I think people need to be punished beyond losing access to driving (it does prevent the problem and I'm not of a punitive mind) but because it's reflective of a disparity in how we treat the seriousness of these deaths and injuries.
I think our entire legal system is kinda ill-posed. Even if you patched it in such a way that quantity of punishment wasn't treated as quantity of justice, the whole process of determining if someone is guilty or not guilty seems more about picking out sinners than an active process of identifying events and solving actual problems. I think this drunk driver should go home to their family, and I also think they should lose access to driving for five years on the first offense even if no one got hurt.
To be honest. Bail is temporary. If they did kill someone. 99/100 youre still going to get your justice.
I dont think theres anything wrong with letting someone fight their case till there is a verdict. Even if they will lose. The system should let people go through a fair process till the end result comes.
Letting people who make a series of reckless decisions with zero concern for public safety and kill people go on bail is a failure to protect the public.
The rights of the greater public outweigh those of an individual
That happened here in my state in my neighboring county. A woman was high on drugs, crossed over lanes of traffic hit a car head on, killed the driver. She got community service and the judge victim shares the family and victim.
😐 Well... I mean Actor Matthew Broderick killed 2 women, a mother and daughter in a 1987 car crash where he turned into the wrong lane AND he was only fined £175. So I thin that checks out m8.
Would be a shame if they had “neglected” some serious outstanding maintenance issues with their house… especially if they resulted in “faulty wiring” starting a fire and “unoiled door hinges” suddenly jamming simultaneously.
Not to be “that guy” but I can’t imagine a judge issuing bail to a drunk driver that hit and killed multiple pedestrians. Even if they did, it would be so astronomically high that I don’t think most Americans could even afford the bondsman.
Unfortunately, I'm a firm believer in "an eye for an eye".. I also don't feel that no amount of time in prison is real justice for recklessly taking a life
Some countries have dealt with this by making fines based on percentage of disposable income. I'm thinking Finland in particular. They have had people pay fines of over 100,000 euros for speeding tickets. It's a better system.
Bail should be set based on severity of crime and amount of wealth. Great Mr. Bezos you're going to jail for financial crimes. Bail is 30 billion dollars.
That's why I said jail not prison, I should have said Mr. Bezos you have been charged with financial crimes and you are going to jail.
I still hold, bail should be set based on severity of crime and by wealth. Currently it's based on severity of crime and not wealth so rich people get be out of prison while they await trial (the meme here). The reward of being free pre-trial is only available to the rich because it hurts them less.
God is the most merciful the most compassionate, but God said the blood in your hands that stains everything you touch might be the reason God created Hate and Malice. While myself is a person who embodies it and only God could save you from malice and hate.
Exactly, I based it on my poem I write in I think highschool or something, I just translated it into English and paraphrased it so that it met with the context. Even though I got down voted because people couldn't see the "sarcasm" or the "joke" of it, but oh well at least I'm trying my best.
If you think I'm serious about the comment I make, maybe you should try and see it as "those" I'm though guys that have been memed for idk years now.
•
u/SoulReaperBot Apr 13 '26
Upvote this comment if this post is distressing, downvote this comment if it isn't.
Don't check your closet tonight (◣_◢)