“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.
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.”
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”
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.
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.
That’s fair. Still, though, something is needed.
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.
And yet on the same turn, if the father was calling for the death penalty or even a lengthy prison sentence, you all would be admonishing the fact that he even got a say and stating this is why justice systems shouldn’t be about satisfying the victim at all.
The hypocrisy is really blatant and self-serving. Should people be punished for their crimes or not? If yes, then you need to support predetermined sentences for crimes that apply equally across all cases, including this one. If no, then you don’t really believe in justice or government, but something much more insidious.
you all would be admonishing the fact that he even got a say and stating this is why justice systems shouldn’t be about satisfying the victim at all.
Ya know, I’ve never seen anyone say that about the victim in instances like the one you describe.
I have, on Reddit, many a time. They often do it to oppose the death penalty or opposing punishing anyone for crimes. It’s cheap enabling and apologia for all kinds of horrific shit wrapped in a neat little package.
There’s a middle ground between life in prison and just a slap on the wrist
I agree. 15 years is hardly “life” in prison, though. I think it’s more than fair.
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.
The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S
Better if he’d hit the goddamn range once or twice…
15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that.
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.
Does “15 years to life” mean anything? Or is it just “15 years”?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.
Why only murder? Why not rape or assault or abuse or any number of different crimes deeply mentally ill people commit on the regular that ruin lives far more deeply than the death of a loved one?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
I witnessed this in a case. Young driver wasn’t paying attention and crossed the line, struck head on and killed an elderly woman on her way to chemotherapy, no joke.
On the recommendation and impassioned pleas of the victim’s family, the defendant plead a manslaughter charge down to a $75 fine for failure to maintain lane or some such infraction. I don’t remember all the facts but was struck by the forward thinking and empathy. The young driver was truly remorseful, part of the pleas were that he had suffered enough, that the memory of what he had done was punishment enough.
Definitely not the same situation at all. This wasn’t some distracted driver, she had literally threatened to do exactly this before.
deleted by creator
Chill out and stop jumping on people for something they never said.
All they commented was that it wasn’t the same situation. That’s a pretty normal thing to do when someone says “oh yeah I remember that happening in this one instance”. They didn’t go after the person or bite their head off or even express aggression.
Ironically, you’re the one jumping on someone for what they didn’t say and perceived aggression that isn’t there.
deleted by creator
Isn’t it equally obvious that there would be a situation where parents of a dead child would want leniency for the accused?
Sounds like that was an accident, not homicide. That isn’t the same thing.
That’s a nice story, in a way, but not even remotely close to this case.
It’s a direct response to another comment, not to the article.
What the fuck are you on about?
Yeah man. I can say I would like to think I would be that forgiving of a person, but I probably wouldn’t.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.”
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.
Oh! You’re talking about the sexual predator/rapist Brock Turner, who now goes by the name Allen Turner.
You do mean Brock Allen Turner who was indicted five charges: two for rape, two for felony sexual assault, and one for attempted rape? This all happened on January 18, 2015.
That’d be the same convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner that was last seen near Dayton OH, right?
It’s good to see on lemmy that people are we continuing the tradition of reminding readers of rapist Brock Turner aka. Allen Turner, the creep who got off ridiculously easy in a uniquely egregious violation of justice.
He shall not find the peace the judge wanted to grant him.
May he find piss.
In his food.
Yes, and apparently just bought a house right by the university and a major bike path, and has been seen out at bars in the area. What a fucking predator.
This is one Reddit trend that Lemmy should absolutely continue
deleted by creator
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.
Removed by mod
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
Prison helps keep people safe, create deterrent, prevents vigilantism. Rehabilitation is the humane thing to do, but it is not why we isolate criminals.
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.
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.
Yeah this is exactly why there’s the option to try a minor as an adult.
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 that 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.
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.
The US’s sense of justice is very much informed by the widespread belief in a deity that requires people to conflate cruelty and love.
Dude. She murdered two men. That’s a dangerous individual.
You think she will be the same person in 15 years?
Yeah! Instead the victims should be forced to pay for the perpetrator to live with free meals and housing for decades rather than attempting to treat the core of the issue if at all possible and turning these people ideally into healthy contributors to society as fast as humanely possible! That definitely helps the victims!
Uber? Omg that’s horrendous!
Better than a nasty ass public e scooter.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sounds more like a prank influenzer to me
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.
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.
I mean, causing a crash and killing someone in the process of speeding is still deserving of a murder sentence.
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.
To make matters even more confusing it all depends on state. Most have manslaughter and for a couple it would be 3rd degree murder.
Hmmmm. No.
There are judges in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas that would say “well, were they protesting or something?”
Food for thought.
Or Portland, even.
This food is spoiled, throw it out.
A haiku about this comment section:
Healthy mind? Minor? We don’t rehabilitate In the USA
Last i checked rehab was like a monster truck derby.
So you think we should “rehab” school shooters too?
How is that even a question ?
Have you ever wondered why the US has so many school shooters?
I am absolutely floored that she survived too. Was she the only one wearing a seatbelt?
Nah, must be her thick skull
you’d think so, but the real secret: no brain to damage
It took police 45 minutes to get to the scene of the crash… fucking what?
This wasn’t exactly in the middle of nowhere
Psst I have some surprising information for you
That the police in the USA don’t want to do their job?
He said surprising
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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.
Don’t think people can ever change, eh?
A punitive system does not a good society make.
Well said Yoda
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.
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.
“Don’t kill people”
What? I’m outraged. Think of the poor murderers trying to be good people.
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.
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.
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”.
Would you bet your life on it?
Yes. I do it every day when I drive.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Her life will look nothing like she imagined.
You could say the same of the two men she murdered, yeah?
It has been statistically proven that white women get easier sentences than men of any race. Her age also probably played in to that.
Reminds me of this news story by the Onion. It was ruled that a young white woman would have to stand trial as a black man.
Was she trying to kill herself too or what? How did she survive when they both died at the scene?
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.
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.
Seriously glad she is off the streets, that girl is psycho.
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
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
That father is a better person than I. But personally, if she killed my son, I’d enjoy watching her be torn to shreds.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Concurrent = at the same time
Consecutive = one after another
Concurrent is almost always the better deal.
Constructive = one after another
I think you mean “consecutive”.
Some great consecutive criticism there.
Yeah, typo, fixed
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?
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.
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”
Totally deserved. I have been the passenger in a similar situation to this - shit was horrifying. I got 100000000% lucky that I wasn’t injured in the crash.
deleted by creator
