Hooray for the US Legal System! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Infinite_Loser · 10-20-2006, 12:36 PM

Man, 89, guilty of killing 10 in farmer's market crash

Quote:

LOS ANGELES. California (AP) -- An elderly driver who killed 10 people and injured more than 70 when his car plowed through a farmers market was found guilty Friday of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.

George Russell Weller, 89, was not in court to hear the verdict. He faces as many as 18 years in prison.

Weller, who is frail and in poor health, attended only the trial's opening statements.

Jurors deliberated eight days before reaching the harshest verdict possible in the crash in Santa Monica three years ago.

Weller's attorneys argued he was a victim of "pedal error," that mistook his car's accelerator for the brake and panicked when the vehicle raced into the open-air market on July 16, 2003.

Prosecutors said he was careless to the point of criminal negligence and lacked remorse.

"He looked at what he had done, essentially shrugged his shoulders and said 'oops,"' prosecutor Ann Ambrose told the jury.

The crash left behind a devastating scene and ignited a national debate over elderly drivers.

Weller's 1992 Buick Le Sabre traveled about 300 yards, reaching speeds of 60 mph or more as it crashed into food stalls. It finally came to a stop after hitting a ditch, with one victim's body tangled underneath and another's draped across the hood.

During the trial, jurors were shown photos of victims, who ranged in age from 7 months to 78 years.

Weller did not testify, but jurors heard his taped interview with police immediately after the crash in which he said he tried everything he could think of to stop the car.

"I tried to take the control knob and jam it into park. Everything. Anything that I thought would stop the action of the car," he said.

Weller said he had no idea how many people he hit.

"But I'm deeply sorry for any pain that everyone went through," he said. "It was my fault."

I remember this when it happened, but I have to say that I'm shocked at the verdict (Actually, I'm more appalled than anything). Maybe it's juse me, but I don't see what throwing an 89 year old man in jail is going to accomplish, especially considering the fact that he's already frail in health. The justice system seems more concerned with handing out exorbitant sentences to people who don't deserve them than they are dealing with the people who do deserve them.

Willravel · 10-20-2006, 01:07 PM

He's senile. The person, people, or organization that allowed him to drive should be going to jail.

Carno · 10-20-2006, 03:11 PM

You mean the Department of Transportation?

Halx · 10-20-2006, 03:29 PM

What can you possibly sentence a guy like that to? Aside from that, he was a well-known person in his community - a teacher I think. He isn't a criminal, he just had a senior moment that killed 10 people.

kutulu · 10-20-2006, 03:31 PM

What, we're supposed to give the guy a break because he's a geriatric? Bullshit. If it was any of us, they'd throw the book at us.

wikipedia shows some witness accounts:

Quote:

* Seeing no brake lights on Weller's car;
* That Weller stared straight ahead as he drove through the crowd, victims flying over his windshield;
* That Weller avoided parked cars to the side of the road, steering instead directly down the middle of the crowded street; and
* That upon exiting his car, cane in hand, Weller casually asked how many people he had hit.

Somehow, he had the common sense to avoid the parked cars and continue to run people over. Fuck him.

Lindy · 10-20-2006, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Weller's 1992 Buick Le Sabre traveled about 300 yards. . . .

Wouldn't you just know-----it had to be a Buick.
Lindy

Brewmaniac · 10-21-2006, 02:24 PM

I'd rather see him sentenced to a nursing home with No access to any vehicle!

blahblah454 · 10-21-2006, 02:30 PM

I agree to Bewmaniac. Just put the guy somewhere where he is going to live out the rest of his days watching TV and being looked after, but no go anywhere. I think that alot of elderly people should not be aloud on the road. I know alot of older people did great things in their youth but lets face it, they are no longer younger and there minds have changed. Taking their cars is not an insult to them, its adressing a reality that they are a hazard.

Telluride · 10-21-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He's senile. The person, people, or organization that allowed him to drive should be going to jail.

If he passed whatever test(s) the DMV had him take, what grounds would there be to punish the person, people or organization that gave him his license?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I agree to Bewmaniac. Just put the guy somewhere where he is going to live out the rest of his days watching TV and being looked after, but no go anywhere. I think that alot of elderly people should not be aloud on the road. I know alot of older people did great things in their youth but lets face it, they are no longer younger and there minds have changed. Taking their cars is not an insult to them, its adressing a reality that they are a hazard.

That's what you do to someone who constantly gets lost, runs stop signs or gets into a minor "fender bender". This guy killed 10 people and injured over 70 more! I can't believe people are saying he shouldn't be punished because he happens to be old.

flstf · 10-22-2006, 02:36 AM

He should be given the same sentence as any other driver of any other age would get.

analog · 10-22-2006, 02:38 AM

Laws aren't different just because you're old.

The reason this man would have been sentenced in this way is that they were unable to prove he did much of anything to attempt to stop the car. All the "oh i tried to stop it" and blah blah in the world doesn't matter when you can always ditch your car into another car, or into a building, to avoid careening down a crowded open street at 60mph. And if the answer to that statement is "it all happened too fast and he's old", then it's still gross negligence.

This WAS gross negligence, no matter how you slice it, and it WAS vehicular manslaughter. Maximum sentence is, in my opinion, the only course of action regardless of age or medical condition.

I'd also remind people that if you're infirmed in jail (need consistent medical care), you don't lay in a cot like everyone else, you're either kept in a separate area under medical care, or you're put in a secure wing of a regular hospital- so it's not like the fact that he's old and infirmed is a problem for being imprisoned. People die in prisons (not due to execution, inmate murder, or suicide) all the time, either from disease or simple old age. He doesn't get a free pass.

Journeyman · 10-22-2006, 03:41 AM

Putting him in a nursing home without access to a vehicle would just send the message that if you're on your way out, you can have all the fun in the world at the expense of other peoples lives and get away with it.
I mean, c'mon, the guy blasts through a farmer's market and his first words are "How many did I hit?" Might as well ask how many points it woulda been worth in a video game.

stevie667 · 10-22-2006, 04:00 AM

What if he had said 'dear god, how many did i hit?', would that have changed your views?

samcol · 10-22-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaniac

I'd rather see him sentenced to a nursing home with No access to any vehicle!

I agree. He's not danger to anyone as long as he can't get ahold of a vehicle.

Coppertop · 10-22-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

Just put the guy somewhere where he is going to live out the rest of his days watching TV and being looked after, but no go anywhere.

That place is called prison.

To those that balk because of his age, would it change matters if he was under the driving age?

biznatch · 10-22-2006, 09:45 AM

I feel a bit harsh to say this, but I agree with Journeyman.
"Oh, he's gonna die soon anyway" isn't an excuse. Of course, I think people that age should be controlled regularly, and if they are unable to control their vehicle, they shouldn't have the right to drive it.

spectre · 10-22-2006, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

I feel a bit harsh to say this, but I agree with Journeyman.
"Oh, he's gonna die soon anyway" isn't an excuse. Of course, I think people that age should be controlled regularly, and if they are unable to control their vehicle, they shouldn't have the right to drive it.

I agree too. If can't figure out which pedal is which, he shouldn't be driving, that's just reckless, and age isn't an excuse.

I think once you reach about 65, you need to be tested either every year or every other year. Is it agist? Maybe, but every time I see my 70+ year old grandmother get behind the wheel, I'm just waiting to hear that she hit someone, again. And I'm constantly annoyed by elderly drivers who drive well below the speed limit on major streets. If you don't feel you can drive 35 in a 35, then you probably shouldn't be taking this road. All it does is annoy drivers and make them do stupid things to get around them. I don't expect people to go speeding down streets, but come on, at least do the damned speed limit.

Terminal Frost · 10-22-2006, 10:19 AM

If I were a personally affected by this tragedy I would be angrier with the AARP than anyone else. The old guy should not have been driving. Obviously the AARP is not legally responsible, but in my opinion they are responsible for laws not being passed that would require re-testing elderly drivers. If laws like this were able to be passed, those 10 people wouldn't be dead and the old man wouldn't be spending the last years of his life in prison. Unfortunately that is not the reality, and as such, the driver of the car undoubtedly deserves the maximum penalty.

So yeah, Hooray for the US Legal System. Shame on the US Legislature.

Telluride · 10-22-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminal Frost

If I were a personally affected by this tragedy I would be angrier with the AARP than anyone else. The old guy should not have been driving. Obviously the AARP is not legally responsible, but in my opinion they are responsible for laws not being passed that would require re-testing elderly drivers. If laws like this were able to be passed, those 10 people wouldn't be dead and the old man wouldn't be spending the last years of his life in prison. Unfortunately that is not the reality, and as such, the driver of the car undoubtedly deserves the maximum penalty.

So yeah, Hooray for the US Legal System. Shame on the US Legislature.

I understand your point and agree with much of it in principle, but I think the blame should really be assigned to the politicians who don't pass the necessary laws. Regardless of what special interest groups say and do, it's the politicians who choose what legislation to introduce and support.

Gilda · 10-23-2006, 03:54 AM

I'm of two minds about this. Part of me wants to say that regardless of his age, he needs to go to jail. Justice demands that we treat people equally regardless of health.

Another part says that because of his age and health, it's unnecessary to accomplish any of the goals that we have for sending someone away.

The general purpose of any punishment is to prevent reoccurrances of the behavior, either by the same person or by others through the deterrent effect. Taking away this guy's license and car accomplishes the first, and I doubt many people who aren't deterred by the thought of possibly killing people will take the ensuing jail time into account as a reason not to drive.

And really, is there going to be much difference between a prison hospital ward and a highly restricted state run nursing home? Keep him away from the public through either method and he can't hurt anybody else.

deezelnDC · 10-25-2006, 12:36 PM

I wonder if he was a menace to his community before this or was he your everyday, law abiding, hard working citizen before this mishap. that would determine what type of sentence he deserved in my opinion, not that it matters!

_God_ · 10-28-2006, 11:10 AM

The book was properly thrown at him. There are tons of older people who know they shouldn't drive, but do it anyway. If he didn't even fully grasp his surroundings, he should have known he was an unsafe driver.

Giving this guy a slap on the wrist sends the message that it's okay to endanger everyone around you.

kutulu · 11-20-2006, 03:23 PM

Sentenced to probation:

Quote:

George Russell Weller Sentenced To Probation
AP

LOS ANGELES, November 20, 2006 - The man who killed 10 people and injured more than 70 others when he drove through the Santa Monica Farmers Market was sentenced Monday to probation by a judge who said he believed the crime deserved imprisonment but the defendant was too ill.

George Russell Weller, 89, was convicted Oct. 20 of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence in a case that ignited debate over the licensing of elderly drivers. Weller, confined to a sickbed, was not present.

Weller was 86 when he plowed his 1992 Buick Le Sabre into the crowded farmers market on July 16, 2003, moments after colliding with another car.

Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson said he agreed completely with the jury and called Weller's actions callous and showing "an enormous indifference to human life."

Weller could have received up to 18 years in prison, but the judge said Weller's health problems including severe heart disease would make him a burden on prison authorities and taxpayers, and that imprisonment would most likely kill Weller.

Defense attorneys argued at trial that Weller was a victim of "pedal error," in which he panicked and mistook the car's accelerator for the brake. Prosecutors said he was careless to the point of criminal negligence.

The judge dissected the accident events beginning with the initial car-to-car collision and noted that Weller had enough control of his own vehicle to steer away from cars and trucks within the farmers market.

"Mr. Weller chose to steer into the people, plowing into the crowd and literally launching bodies into the air as his car sped 2½ blocks," the judge said.

The judge also called Weller's apologies hollow.

Bullshit. I guess this means if you are a geriatric you are above the law.

beavstrokinoff · 11-21-2006, 10:37 AM

18 years for an old guy who fucked up bad is kinda sad. Throwing him in prison is not going to do himor society any good at all. I'm not going to say what should happen cause all I know is what is above but jesus, 18 years? I guess that's why it's called the Legal system and not the Justice system. There is no justice in that sentence.

Kaliena · 11-21-2006, 10:41 AM

I imagine if the people aren't happy with the verdict, some lawsuit or another will spring up with the Department of Transportation.

vermin · 11-21-2006, 11:37 AM

He killed ten people. He should get the death penalty.
On purpose, on accident, what difference does it make?
None to the families of the deceased or the deceased themselves.
If you want to send a message of deterrence, you have to apply the punishments equally without considering age, race, sex, health, or mental competance. Otherwise your justice system becomes the joke that it is.

ratbastid · 11-21-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermin

He killed ten people. He should get the death penalty.
On purpose, on accident, what difference does it make?

In the eyes of the law, it makes a huge difference. Vehicular manslaughter (like other accidental death felonies) isn't a capital crime. It doesn't matter if there are ten, twenty, or fifty counts of vehicular manslaughter, they still don't add up to a death sentence. Life in prison, sure. Successive sentences that amount to a life sentence, sure. But not death.

Miss Mango · 11-21-2006, 12:12 PM

I heard on NPR this morning that he actually said, Why didnt you get out of my way? after the accident.

Frosstbyte · 11-21-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermin

He killed ten people. He should get the death penalty.
On purpose, on accident, what difference does it make?
None to the families of the deceased or the deceased themselves.
If you want to send a message of deterrence, you have to apply the punishments equally without considering age, race, sex, health, or mental competance. Otherwise your justice system becomes the joke that it is.

That is a terrifying legal system you propose. I hope you realize just how terrifying it is. Imagine: I trip on a cord in my living room and bump my head on a table which has a metal bowl on it which falls out an open window and kills someone walking by. What possible purpose would putting me to death for that serve?

Not that my hypo is anything remotely close to the situation at hand, but as a system of justice, punishing eye-for-an-eye without regard for cause or fault makes absolutely no sense.

Xera · 11-21-2006, 09:03 PM

Would we be having this argument if the guy were drunk instead of old?

I don't think so.

Just like the drunk that kills with his/her car, the old person who kills with his/her car knows ahead of time that they are not as skilled as they once were behind the wheel, thats why so many of them are driving 30 in a 55 zone.

If you know before hand that what you are doing is a danger to someone else, and you keep doing it, you are responsible for the damage you cause- no matter how old you are.

analog · 11-21-2006, 09:24 PM

I am willing to bet beyond reasonale doubt that the judge is more than aware of the man's health condition, and that this man is essentially bedridden at this point. There's no real reason to put a bedridden, essentially "dying" person in a locked-down health facility other than to spite him.

Just because he's too frail to serve jail time doesn't mean justice wasn't served. The proper channels were used, and he was sentenced. His sentence accounts for reality- he's old and infirmed. I don't see this as a free pass, this is all that can be expected to happen.

The judge even said it was partly a cost thing... think of it this way:

The judge puts him in jail, we all pay [taxes] for him to wither and die... if the judge gives him probation, he pays to wither and die. So really, giving him "jail time" would have been a free ride- this is actually going to cost him something tangible.

shakran · 11-21-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

He's senile. The person, people, or organization that allowed him to drive should be going to jail.

Will called it. Unfortunately the driver licensing system in this country is broken. Badly. I've been driving for decades. I've had a driving test once, when I was 16. Even when I move to a different state, with different rules, they don't test me on ANYTHING except my vision. As long as I can rattle off 7 letters to them, I get my license, no questions asked. Lobbying groups like the AARP have made sure this system stays in effect for seniors as well. No reflex tests, no checks to make sure they can still drive safely, nothing. Unless they're completely blind, they can get their license.

However, woe to the politician who first suggests changing the laws so that people actually have to know how to drive in order to be allowed to drive. His career will sink faster than the Titanic. So that system isnt' gonna change. Ever.

Because of this, we have to have another way of getting dangerous drivers off the streets. That's why I fully support this sentence. If we didn't toss the old guy in jail, he'd legally be able to be back behind the wheel tomorrow. Sure, it'd be nice if we could just take his drivers license away forever, but that won't happen unless he gets well over 20 DUI's. So we have to throw him in jail.

Another argument in favor of throwing him in jail - - what if the age of the guy was 25? or 40? He just killed 10 people and injured 70 because he crashed through a farmers market. Clearly he did not know how to control his vehicle before he got in it and moved it. Would there be such outrage on here if the guy were not an old man?

Telluride · 11-21-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

Just because he's too frail to serve jail time doesn't mean justice wasn't served. The proper channels were used, and he was sentenced. His sentence accounts for reality- he's old and infirmed. I don't see this as a free pass, this is all that can be expected to happen.

If a convicted criminal isn't really punished for his or her crime, how can you say that justice was served?

10-20-2006, 03:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	You mean the Department of Transportation? __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

10-20-2006, 03:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	What can you possibly sentence a guy like that to? Aside from that, he was a well-known person in his community - a teacher I think. He isn't a criminal, he just had a senior moment that killed 10 people. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-21-2006, 02:24 PM	#7 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	I'd rather see him sentenced to a nursing home with No access to any vehicle! __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

10-22-2006, 04:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	What if he had said 'dear god, how many did i hit?', would that have changed your views? __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

10-23-2006, 03:54 AM	#20 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	I'm of two minds about this. Part of me wants to say that regardless of his age, he needs to go to jail. Justice demands that we treat people equally regardless of health. Another part says that because of his age and health, it's unnecessary to accomplish any of the goals that we have for sending someone away. The general purpose of any punishment is to prevent reoccurrances of the behavior, either by the same person or by others through the deterrent effect. Taking away this guy's license and car accomplishes the first, and I doubt many people who aren't deterred by the thought of possibly killing people will take the ensuing jail time into account as a reason not to drive. And really, is there going to be much difference between a prison hospital ward and a highly restricted state run nursing home? Keep him away from the public through either method and he can't hurt anybody else. __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

10-20-2006, 01:07 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He's senile. The person, people, or organization that allowed him to drive should be going to jail.

10-21-2006, 02:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	I agree to Bewmaniac. Just put the guy somewhere where he is going to live out the rest of his days watching TV and being looked after, but no go anywhere. I think that alot of elderly people should not be aloud on the road. I know alot of older people did great things in their youth but lets face it, they are no longer younger and there minds have changed. Taking their cars is not an insult to them, its adressing a reality that they are a hazard.

10-22-2006, 02:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	He should be given the same sentence as any other driver of any other age would get.

10-22-2006, 02:38 AM	#11 (permalink)
analog Banned	Laws aren't different just because you're old. The reason this man would have been sentenced in this way is that they were unable to prove he did much of anything to attempt to stop the car. All the "oh i tried to stop it" and blah blah in the world doesn't matter when you can always ditch your car into another car, or into a building, to avoid careening down a crowded open street at 60mph. And if the answer to that statement is "it all happened too fast and he's old", then it's still gross negligence. This WAS gross negligence, no matter how you slice it, and it WAS vehicular manslaughter. Maximum sentence is, in my opinion, the only course of action regardless of age or medical condition. I'd also remind people that if you're infirmed in jail (need consistent medical care), you don't lay in a cot like everyone else, you're either kept in a separate area under medical care, or you're put in a secure wing of a regular hospital- so it's not like the fact that he's old and infirmed is a problem for being imprisoned. People die in prisons (not due to execution, inmate murder, or suicide) all the time, either from disease or simple old age. He doesn't get a free pass.

10-22-2006, 03:41 AM	#12 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Putting him in a nursing home without access to a vehicle would just send the message that if you're on your way out, you can have all the fun in the world at the expense of other peoples lives and get away with it. I mean, c'mon, the guy blasts through a farmer's market and his first words are "How many did I hit?" Might as well ask how many points it woulda been worth in a video game.

10-22-2006, 09:45 AM	#16 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	I feel a bit harsh to say this, but I agree with Journeyman. "Oh, he's gonna die soon anyway" isn't an excuse. Of course, I think people that age should be controlled regularly, and if they are unable to control their vehicle, they shouldn't have the right to drive it.

10-22-2006, 10:19 AM	#18 (permalink)
Terminal Frost Tilted Location: Manhattan Island	If I were a personally affected by this tragedy I would be angrier with the AARP than anyone else. The old guy should not have been driving. Obviously the AARP is not legally responsible, but in my opinion they are responsible for laws not being passed that would require re-testing elderly drivers. If laws like this were able to be passed, those 10 people wouldn't be dead and the old man wouldn't be spending the last years of his life in prison. Unfortunately that is not the reality, and as such, the driver of the car undoubtedly deserves the maximum penalty. So yeah, Hooray for the US Legal System. Shame on the US Legislature.

10-25-2006, 12:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
deezelnDC Upright	I wonder if he was a menace to his community before this or was he your everyday, law abiding, hard working citizen before this mishap. that would determine what type of sentence he deserved in my opinion, not that it matters!

10-28-2006, 11:10 AM	#22 (permalink)
_God_ Banned Location: You're kidding, right?	The book was properly thrown at him. There are tons of older people who know they shouldn't drive, but do it anyway. If he didn't even fully grasp his surroundings, he should have known he was an unsafe driver. Giving this guy a slap on the wrist sends the message that it's okay to endanger everyone around you.

11-21-2006, 10:37 AM	#24 (permalink)
beavstrokinoff Tilted	18 years for an old guy who fucked up bad is kinda sad. Throwing him in prison is not going to do himor society any good at all. I'm not going to say what should happen cause all I know is what is above but jesus, 18 years? I guess that's why it's called the Legal system and not the Justice system. There is no justice in that sentence.

11-21-2006, 10:41 AM	#25 (permalink)
Kaliena Crazy Location: Pennsylvania, USA	I imagine if the people aren't happy with the verdict, some lawsuit or another will spring up with the Department of Transportation. __________________ ~Beware the waffle~

11-21-2006, 11:37 AM	#26 (permalink)
vermin Indifferent to anti-matter Location: Tucson, AZ	He killed ten people. He should get the death penalty. On purpose, on accident, what difference does it make? None to the families of the deceased or the deceased themselves. If you want to send a message of deterrence, you have to apply the punishments equally without considering age, race, sex, health, or mental competance. Otherwise your justice system becomes the joke that it is. __________________ If puns were sausages, this would be the wurst.

11-21-2006, 12:12 PM	#28 (permalink)
Miss Mango Psycho	I heard on NPR this morning that he actually said, Why didnt you get out of my way? after the accident.

11-21-2006, 09:03 PM	#30 (permalink)
Xera Crazy	Would we be having this argument if the guy were drunk instead of old? I don't think so. Just like the drunk that kills with his/her car, the old person who kills with his/her car knows ahead of time that they are not as skilled as they once were behind the wheel, thats why so many of them are driving 30 in a 55 zone. If you know before hand that what you are doing is a danger to someone else, and you keep doing it, you are responsible for the damage you cause- no matter how old you are. __________________ ~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~ "A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing." ~Erno Philips

11-21-2006, 09:24 PM	#31 (permalink)
analog Banned	I am willing to bet beyond reasonale doubt that the judge is more than aware of the man's health condition, and that this man is essentially bedridden at this point. There's no real reason to put a bedridden, essentially "dying" person in a locked-down health facility other than to spite him. Just because he's too frail to serve jail time doesn't mean justice wasn't served. The proper channels were used, and he was sentenced. His sentence accounts for reality- he's old and infirmed. I don't see this as a free pass, this is all that can be expected to happen. The judge even said it was partly a cost thing... think of it this way: The judge puts him in jail, we all pay [taxes] for him to wither and die... if the judge gives him probation, he pays to wither and die. So really, giving him "jail time" would have been a free ride- this is actually going to cost him something tangible.