Legal Forms Texas: Fill & Download for Free

To be clear, Ethan Couch pled guilty and was convicted. The furor is over a sentence of 10 years probation.From CNN (TV network)'s Texas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for driving drunk, killing 4:Lawyers for Couch, 16, had argued that the teen's parents should share part of the blame for the crash because they never set limits for the boy and gave him everything he wanted.According to CNN affiliate WFAA, a psychologist called by the defense described Couch as a product of "affluenza."He reportedly testified that the teen's family felt wealth bought privilege, and that Couch's life could be turned around with one to two years of treatment and no contact with his parents.Couch was sentenced by a juvenile court judge Tuesday. If he violates the terms of his probation, he could face up to 10 years of incarceration, according to a statement from the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office.Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.Here's what I think:The parents' attorneys are going to have their work cut out for them in the slew of wrongful death civil suits coming their way.One question here is whether the punishment fits the crime on an individually considered basis. Given the terrible damage that has already been done, what is the best course of action to lead to the best outcome and chance for rehabilitation? I don't know the answer to that.A much bigger and more troubling question is whether or not this constitutes justice within the broader framework of our society. If the case had revolved around an inner city 16 year old boy with darker skin, a lot of people (myself included) feel that the court would've likely been much less receptive to a defense argument about how the kid's parents never set limits for him.The fact that a $450,000/year long treatment facility in Orange Country could even remotely be an option – where in most cases it simply couldn't be due to limits on family resources – poses its own very thorny questions. If it is unlikely that poverty would be a cause for arguably lenient sentencing, why should wealth?Justice being blind doesn't stop people from setting gold coins on the scales.

Mail boxes - wherever located - belong to the United States Postal Service. Report your landlord (or landlady) to the manager of your nearest post office, or to the manager of your city’s main post office. I don’t think keeping you from your mail is legal.

Oh, dear.This again. I wonder if the OP and people like him ever think this sort of thing all the way through. Think if they really want to live in a place where you can get in real legal trouble, not for doing anything that harms anyone, but for doing mean things to a piece of cloth decorated in a particular pattern.This kind of question invariably comes from people who in their next breath will accuse liberals of hating the Constitution.Fortunately this type of law has already been tried, and already been struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.The case was Texas v. Johnson.Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others.A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and in a 5-4 decision, held that flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. As a result, the Texas law and several other similar laws that had been passed in other states in the 1970's were struck down.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”That’s the country I want to live in. The country that protects my right to express my anger, not the one that places the well-being of a piece of cloth above those rights.Thank God, I do.