Per The Ticket: Josh Brent sentenced to 10 years Probation and 180 days in jail.

[cowboys2233]

So to respond to your original statement, he did then intentionally break the law.

Yes, let's just ignore all the nuances that makes these two situations very different and just make it black and white. Apparently, that is all some of you are capable of.

 

[Tabascocat]

I agree, but the reason for that is that prevention is not a money maker like detection. Like it or not, a lot of money is made from arresting drunk drivers.

A lot of money is also made off alcohol taxation and the licensing that bars and restaurants need to sell it.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Agree but with the caveat that the players get a vote on whether to bring him back or not. If they don't, I think its very likely another team signs him however.

Good point. I think they will, though; he is said to be a good teammate.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree, but the reason for that is that prevention is not a money maker like detection. Like it or not, a lot of money is made from arresting drunk drivers.

I agree but then, wouldn't you say that it is a bit unfair for society to literally lay all of the culpability on the guy who is being pulled over, while encouraging the practice of getting people drunk to begin with?

I mean, what you say is absolutely true but that approach is never going to solve the problem. It's only going to facilitate more laws that make it easier for municipalities to make money off of citizens. That's not the answer. I think it's time that society wakes up and realizes that all of this blind condemnation of DUIs are not working. All it is becoming is another way in which to tax citizens. The goal should be to fix the problem, not make more money IMO.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

A lot of money is also made off alcohol taxation and the licensing that bars and restaurants need to sell it.

But again, that still goes to the citizen. Those taxes and fees are passed on. This doesn't solve the problem. This only helps to make more money for whatever city you live in.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

A lot of money is also made off alcohol taxation and the licensing that bars and restaurants need to sell it.

Exactly, you prevent people from buying and drinking alcohol, you lose those tax dollars, and you also lose money from the DUI's.

 

[Tabascocat]

But again, that still goes to the citizen. Those taxes and fees are passed on. This doesn't solve the problem. This only helps to make more money for whatever city you live in.

Was never stated to solve the problem. The Government/state/city loses if they can't make money off taxation and DUI's, it is a moneymaker for them and they do not want that to go away.

In order to not get more political, it is not in their best interest for government to step in and actually fix the problem. They could really crack down on establishments that sell alcohol but that will hurt their pocketbook.

 

[jterrell]

Only other players in Brent's shoes have returned to the league.
Would be bigger surprise if Brent did not than if he did.

This sentencing was perfectly average for Texas. Brent did not leave the scene of the crime a la Goodrich and he had no convictions in this state.

The DA could have gotten this result a year ago minus a trial.

In many ways the 10 year probated sentence was best case for rehabilitation and the Brown family.
Brent has time served and any short sentence would have simply removed his ability to pay restitution of any meaningful amount.

For Maya Browns sake I hope Brent makes 5 million playing football in the next 4-5 years.
Would be really nice if Browns best friend and accidental killer stepped up and helped raise Maya... Once he himself grows up.

God bless them all.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not trying to say that people who drive drunk are faultless. That's clearly not the case. However, they are also not solely at fault for what is going on either. We have already established, I think, the fact that once you reach a certain point, you are not going to make good decisions. If this is the case, then how can we reasonably expect people to be able to avoid these kinds of situations? Yet, at the same time, this country has shown time and time again that they do not want to get rid of alcohol. There is zero support for that.

I think that society, as a whole, needs to come to the realization that drunk driving in this country is not the sole responsibility of the driver. You can't, on the one hand, put a loaded gun in the hands of a child and then find that child guilty of murder if he or she shoots somebody. I realize this is an over simplification of the situation but this is how I see this. The goal should be to solve the problem. I just think that certain groups or agencies have tapped into societies shortcoming on the subject of alcohol and have started using it as a way to basically take advantage of citizens. I don't think that's right.

I'm starting to think that penalties for driving under the influence should become stiffer but should be enforced, only if an actual accident occurs. Penalties should be inclusive of both bars, liquor stores and manufacturers. This, IMO, would solve the problem much quicker. There are ways in which a person can get more sober quickly but you never see these measures available in bars etc. Why? Would seem as if it would make sense to provide such things but you never see it. Scientists have discovered that oxygenated alcohol allows a person to sober up 20 to 30 minutes faster then a person who drinks normal alcohol. Things like this are not tried because, like many other things in business, there is no driving force to introduce them. However, if you changed the laws and made it more painful for parties involved with selling and producing liquor, that would drive this kind of solution providing and we would actually see better alternatives for dealing with the problem.

 

[justbob]

This was his second DUI. He totaled a car and spent time in jail in college.

Criminal history is used more in determing probation.....no violent crime or habitual thefts.

 

[justbob]

Watch your remarks to each other. Some of you are working your self into a lather.

 

[burmafrd]

I'm not trying to say that people who drive drunk are faultless. That's clearly not the case. However, they are also not solely at fault for what is going on either. We have already established, I think, the fact that once you reach a certain point, you are not going to make good decisions. If this is the case, then how can we reasonably expect people to be able to avoid these kinds of situations? Yet, at the same time, this country has shown time and time again that they do not want to get rid of alcohol. There is zero support for that.

I think that society, as a whole, needs to come to the realization that drunk driving in this country is not the sole responsibility of the driver. You can't, on the one hand, put a loaded gun in the hands of a child and then find that child guilty of murder if he or she shoots somebody. I realize this is an over simplification of the situation but this is how I see this. The goal should be to solve the problem. I just think that certain groups or agencies have tapped into societies shortcoming on the subject of alcohol and have started using it as a way to basically take advantage of citizens. I don't think that's right.

I'm starting to think that penalties for driving under the influence should become stiffer but should be enforced, only if an actual accident occurs. Penalties should be inclusive of both bars, liquor stores and manufacturers. This, IMO, would solve the problem much quicker. There are ways in which a person can get more sober quickly but you never see these measures available in bars etc. Why? Would seem as if it would make sense to provide such things but you never see it. Scientists have discovered that oxygenated alcohol allows a person to sober up 20 to 30 minutes faster then a person who drinks normal alcohol. Things like this are not tried because, like many other things in business, there is no driving force to introduce them. However, if you changed the laws and made it more painful for parties involved with selling and producing liquor, that would drive this kind of solution providing and we would actually see better alternatives for dealing with the problem.

guess you never heard of the concept of personal responsibility. No one forces the person to drink. And he or she should pay full price for all consequences of that drinking.


lighter sentences if you don't injure someone. Wow. Really. Just encourages people to keep being stupid.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

How can you be so unforgiving when you just admitted you've been guilty of the same. The only difference is that you're judging him based on the outcome of his action. You could have easily killed someone too.

As someone who in a past life has been guilty of this, I'm Leery of throwing stones

Yes, he could half killed someone. But he did not. That is why we half a system of laws. To punish the ones who got caught and who killed or maim.
And that is why we half a system of jurors prudent: The jury or Judge is assigned the task of thowing stones.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

guess you never heard of the concept of personal responsibility. No one forces the person to drink. And he or she should pay full price for all consequences of that drinking.


lighter sentences if you don't injure someone. Wow. Really. Just encourages people to keep being stupid.

Guess you walk through the rain drops, never getting wet. It's not a problem. If you enjoy local government taking advantage of you, then so be it. I hope you get all you can stand of it.

 

[Kaiser]

guess you never heard of the concept of personal responsibility. No one forces the person to drink. And he or she should pay full price for all consequences of that drinking.

Just as many people die in accidents involving excess speed as people over the BAC limit. So I'll go ahead and assume you have never driven over the speed limit by your pontifications in this thread.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just as many people die in accidents involving excess speed as people over the BAC limit. So I'll go ahead and assume you have never driven over the speed limit by your pontifications in this thread.

Interestingly enough, studies have been done that say it is more dangerous to drive tired then it is to drive while over the BAC.

I don't know. None of the answers are easy ones but it sure seems as if we could do a better job of correcting some of these situations. JMO

 

[trueblue1687]

How do you get victimhood out of that? Brent is paying a price for his actions, a price with costs that are criminal, civil and emotional.

The NFL is a team sport. Its not all about money or free agency would be done on eBay. Its also about going to war with teammates you have a very tight bond with and doing it knowing you could be badly injured on each and every play. In the wake of a tragedy with no winners and only losers, Brent's friends/teammates are supporting him the way they hope he would support them if they made the biggest mistake of their lives.

What the Cowboys have done is support Brown's family and reinforce the bond teammates have by giving Brent basic support like helping him get a lawyer, the normal NFL counseling programs, etc.

What several posters here would have done is "wash their hands of Brent" and "kick an untrustworthy idiot to the curb" as we have seen in several posts here. The people who actually look the players in the eye, ask them to sign contract extensions and know that there is a bond between teammates obviously don't agree.

I dunno...probably your undying focus on poor Brent???

Admittedly, I have never played professional football, but I did play 3 years of division 1 football...and served in a war. I can say that from my experience, you have a warped sense of loyalty. Your analogy to football being war is a poor one too. It's intense, but it's a game.

Again, I'll just point out that in real life, when people do stuff like Brent did, and end up going to jail or being charged, they often lose their job. That's the real world...not a video game perspective where anything goes. Reprocussions go well beyond some sort of imaginary brotherhood.

 

[Kaiser]

Admittedly, I have never played professional football, but I did play 3 years of division 1 football...and served in a war. .

I retired as an Army E8. I was at Bragg, Desert Storm and Bosnia.

And you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

guess you never heard of the concept of personal responsibility. No one forces the person to drink. And he or she should pay full price for all consequences of that drinking.


lighter sentences if you don't injure someone. Wow. Really. Just encourages people to keep being stupid.

The rub though is: what price should we have them pay? Negative reinforcement works in the general sense. Sharia law generates very low crime rates. If we were for example, break somebody's kneecaps for a DUI then I imagine a lot of people would stop driving to and from bars.

What the problem is, is that so many of us do it. As others have said, the state encourages and profits off of the industry. Somehow in our puritanical streak we managed to let alcohol slide. As a result, if they were to break people's kneecaps then you would have have 1.2m people in wheelchairs every year.

However we punish people differently here. We put them all in the same facilities and have them 'rehabilitate.' It's not effective as a deterrence and there is plenty of literature out there that demonstrates this. It sucks for the people that are in there, no doubt. OTOH, I really do not see a societal good.

Do you really think that after spending 5 years in the clink he is going to come out a better more contributing member of society? I don't.

Punitive for the sake of being punitive doesn't do society any good and the desire for revenge when you don't have a horse in the race is pretty antisocial.

Instead on calling on him to go to prison, I think the better want is for a better way.

 

[Tobal]

I grew up in a different era, when I was starting to drive drunk driving and DUI's were really just starting to become a big deal. I drove while drunk several times. I rode with others who were drinking. I drink rarely now and never drive within hours of drinking. When you get a family perspective changes.

If I get in a car with my best friend and he's drunk and he crashes I do not want his life ended by rotting in a cell for 20 years or a decision we both made. I want him to have the chance to better himself and atone for both our mistakes,

When a man does something intentional I'm all for throwing the book at him, when a man makes a stupid mistake and the victims family supports that man, then I see no issue with this sentence. If and it's a huge if he can keep his nose clean for 10 years. Then we've done more for Jerry Brown than trying to apply our justice for his death.

I would feel the same way if he was not a football player.