Judge who gave probation to "affluenza teen" Ethan Couch has NO REGRETS

[Text Drivers are Killers]

What's to regret? She's rich and retired now. Has there even been a judge that doesn't take bribes.?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...UR-people-drunk-driving-crash-says-facts.html

feb 22 2016 Paying her cleaner, relaxing in the Texas sunshine and doing her shopping, this is the retired judge who sentenced affluenza teen Ethan Couch to ten years' probation following his conviction on four counts of manslaughter in April 2014.

Now, despite Couch, 18, being transferred to the adult justice system following his violating probation by skipping off to Mexico, Daily Mail Online can exclusively reveal that Judge Jean Boyd, 63, has no regrets about the 'slap-on-the-wrist' punishment.

Speaking outside the white stucco home she shares with her dentist husband John, also 63, she claimed people who 'don't have all the facts' simply don't understand the logic behind her decision.
Boyd, retired immediately after the Couch case and has never before spoken publicly about his sentence.

Boyd has been widely criticized over her handling of the case and the soft sentence handed down – particularly as prosecutor Riley Shaw had asked for a 20-year jail term during the trial.

 

[Rune]

Prove she was bribed retard.

 

[evince]

well rush lied about it


the op has no idea what constitutes a fact

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Prove she was bribed retard.

She gave probation to a 4 time murderer. That means the burden of proof is on YOU to show she was not bribed. THINK

 

[Rune]

She gave probation to a 4 time murderer. That means the burden of proof is on YOU to show she was not bribed. THINK

You made the claim retard.
Prove it.

 

[Konono]

You made the claim retard.
Prove it.

According to Christie, the one who says the claim is not true bears the burden of proof.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

You made the claim retard.
Prove it.

Not the way it works. You're the one making the outrageous claim and the burden of proof is thus on you. Let's see it, bigtalk.

 

[Rune]

Not the way it works. You're the one making the outrageous claim and the burden of proof is thus on you. Let's see it, bigtalk.

No bitch.
The outrageous claim is that she was bribed.
You have no proof.
You are a liar and a retard.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

No bitch.
The outrageous claim is that she was bribed.
You have no proof.
You are a liar and a retard.

All judges take bribes all the time, you fool.

 

[CFM]

Prove she was bribed retard.

Does that mean you support her affluenza decision?

 

[CFM]

No bitch.
The outrageous claim is that she was bribed.
You have no proof.
You are a liar and a retard.

I have proof that the judge was a dumb bitch. Just look at the decision she made.

 

[Konono]

No bitch.
The outrageous claim is that she was bribed.
You have no proof.
You are a liar and a retard.

Go google it yourself you dumb hypocritical blowhard.

 

[Konono]

You made the claim retard.
Prove it.

Remember your fracking claim you would not back up? Dumb hypocritical blowhard.

 

[Rune]

Go google it yourself you dumb hypocritical blowhard.

You are so simple as to believe I can prove a negative via google?

 

[Rune]

Remember your fracking claim you would not back up? Dumb hypocritical blowhard.

The difference, simpleton, is that had you googled my claim you would have found it accurate.
This loser's claim is a complete and fabrication. Unless of course you believe that all judges take bribes. Duh

 

[CFM]

You are so simple as to believe I can prove a negative via google?

If you can't prove something, perhaps you should quit making claims.