Agree that they should have served more time for killing someone with snipers. I say atlease 20 years each.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Do you know anything about either of these kids?

You have to remember we live in a nation (and arguably world) where personal responsibility, especially towards others, is far from the forefront of most people's minds. Most people don't even realize they are ignoring it.

Look at our various legislatures. They vote on things they or their consituents want, generally ignoring whether it's needed or feasible. And when something is needed they scramble to scrape together whatever is needed, and rarely do they sacrifice the wants to cover the needs. I'm not picking on just government here, buisnesses and individuals are just as guilty.

This situation with these "juvenile delinquents" is a perfect example. Yes, the title assigned to them is ironic, of course juvenile's are delinquent, they are not yet responsible adults with the full range of mental facilities and knowledge of the social contract to exist productively in a society. While most juveniles more or less grow out of that stage, some do not, and this pair is a prime example of our failure.

Yes, our failure. The failure specifically of their parents and the general failure of our society.

You mention the insanity of their sentence, I agree. But it is rather typical, so long as they aren't tried as an adult they could be in and out of detention centers for the majority of their lives, and I say lives because once they cross that magical threshold of 18 years of age or do something heinous enough to be tried as adults, they will most likely get the most severe punishment for their crimes, which could reach capital punishment, and that will be the end of their lives.

Doesn't such a series of events sound insane? And yet we constantly propgate just this sort of "punishment". The problem is people, the people need to care. Sadly the people care enough to do something have a habit of being too selfless or going off the deep end at the wrong targets.

The rational middle man is left to shrug his shoulders and shake his head hoping that maybe with some time it will change, he doesn't want to risk what hes built up. I count myself among that number, I'll admit that in the broader sense of true selflessness towards society that I am a coward. I wish I wasn't, I wish I could do more, but wishing doesn't do shit. I know, I still don't have a pony.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Are you seriously trying to tell a group with a seige mentality that there are shades of grey?

The insurance policy holders were the teens' parents. It sounds like it was not the sort of insurance policy which merely covered property and structural damages (e.g., fire, flood, hurricane etc.) but would also cover unrelated third-parties from injuries which may be related to their house. For example, under the terms of some homeowner insurance policies, if a big-ass tractor-trailer crashes into your house, knocks a huge portion of it off it's foundation, and sends it crashing into your neighbour's yard, where it crushes their child playing in an inflatible wading pool, your insurance company could well be on the hook for the death of your neighbour's child (like all insurance companies, they'll try their best to wiggle off the hook, most likely by blaming it all on the tractor-trailer's insurance carrier, but that's another matter).

But, of course (and this seems to be the operative liability-cancelling fact in this case), no insurance policy's terms are going to cover you if you, the homeowner, were the one that drove the tractor-trailer into your own house or stood in the street with those little red-flags on sticks and directed the driver into the side of your house. That's called "you intended to have the loss happen or you should have reasonably expected that it would happen," and which no insurance policies will cover. That's why the parents are left on the hook without being able to pass off any judgement which may be entered against them onto their insurer. Not that they behaved "maliciously." More like if they didn't personally make it happen, then they should have seen it coming. Either way, they ain't covered for that.

The more frequently litigated issue is of the homeowner who serves alcohol at a social gathering in their house and, when their inebriated guests leave and mow down some innocent standing at a bus stop, either get their insurance carrier dragged in as a co-defendant by the plaintiff or themselves drag their insurance carrier in as an indemnifying party so they won't have to take the hit in their own pockets. The proper response from the insurance carrier is, "Idiot, didn't you think when you were mixing those martinis and thereafter saw your buddy staggering out to his car, keys in hand, that he was going to mow someone down 'cause he was too drunk to drive? No? Too bad. You should have. Maybe then you would have taken away his keys and called him a cab. Don't look to us to fix a problem of your making. You're on your own."