Judge lowers Josh Brent's bail, prohibits alcohol intake

"Judge lowers Josh Brent's bail, prohibits alcohol intake...."

Was the Judge anyway related to JJ?

Isn't everyone in Texas?

nobody would have to tell me to stop drinking.......i would automatically,....esp. after i killed someone/my friend.

This man is a tool.....

1. A judge forbidding him to drink is a violation of his constitutional rights. Not that it matters, the Constitution is nothing more than antique toilet paper anyway.
2. Smartest thing for him to do would be to get loaded as soon and as often as possible. Then cry addiction like a big ole baby. Six months court ordered rehab and he'll be ready for the opening of camp next year.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, but we all know differently.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 09:44 AM ET  12.20 by SteveDallas

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, but we all know differently.

I would if you were but you're not.

I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to people who drink and drive. Do it once because you haven't figured out your own signs that you shouldn't be driving? Okay. Do it repeatedly because you obviously are just that selfish and that unable to give a rip about strangers in other cars and I don't want to know you or about you anymore. This guy is lacking some very important components, like the ability to pull his head out of his butt. I really hope they put him away for a while, but I have no faith in that scenario.

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 09:44 AM ET  12.20 by SteveDallas

1. A judge forbidding him to drink is a violation of his constitutional rights. Not that it matters, the Constitution is nothing more than antique toilet paper anyway.2. Smartest thing for him to do would be to get loaded as soon and as often as possible. Then cry addiction like a big ole baby. Six months court ordered rehab and he'll be ready for the opening of camp next year.Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong, but we all know differently.

Please explain which constitutional right of his was violated. 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.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

These are just a couple. I did not see one where it says you have the right to consume alcohol till drunk and then kill someone because you decided to drive in an impaired state.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 11:16 AM ET  12.20 by Ogre57

I did not see one where it says you have the right to consume alcohol till drunk and then kill someone because you decided to drive in an impaired state.

You were doing so well until that last sentence, at which point I labeled you as an idiot. Go back to school and pay attention this time.
By the way there were no cars in the 18th century. John Hancock's Mustang got 160 miles per bail.

Laugh

Oh really, I didn't realise that. Please enlighten this idiot with your stellar education how it was against his constitutional rights. Please feel free to partake in some of that bail to speed up your thought process.

By inflicting punishment (ie: drinking restrictions) on an American citizen without a trial by his peers.

Or as you said:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Consider yourself enlightened.

If these drinking restrictions were against his Constitutional rights, I am sure there would have been a line of lawyers trying to appeal the punishment. The judge is well within his rights to restrict him from drinking, his defense attorney was present and his trial by jury for the charges of intoxication manslaughter is sure to be coming.

Just because a Judge does something doesn't make it legal. Nor does the competence of counsel or lack there of, lend credence to to proceedings. More importantly the idea you believe a judge has the right to do jack diddley is rather disturbing. It is not a judges job to restrict an innocent American citizen from any legal activities. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
However I'm sure a blackmail agreement was reached between the parties. Brent agrees to the blackmail and the judge knocks 80% off that ridiculous bond. That's how the most corrupt judicial system in the world works. It is impossible to tell who's the bigger scumbag.

I understand your anger and do agree with how the system has been corrupted. Criminals have more rights than victims and instead of getting true justice we have alowed our protectors (DA/Courts) to play their game of selling justice in the interest of saving tax payers money. I understand that just because a judge says it is so, always makes it correct, my older sister is an appellate judge and we have had many discussions on the systems faults. The judge normally does not do things beyond their perveyance due to the appellate process. Sometimes I wish judges could do more as we see more and more people get off because of unintended loopholes in the system, but until we as a people decide to change things, then I guess we are all just bit@&ing since we are not presenting a solution.

Correction, does not always make it so.

There is a problem, We the People no longer have the power/money to change anything. A child born today is $50,000.00 in debt. Add to that the fact they won't pay a dime for the first two decades of their life and compound interest will keep piling it on, things are worse than your congressman will ever admit to. With the tax structure and social programs in this country a third will never pay anything anyway, thereby adding to the debt burden of the working class.
I could go on for days explaining the other hurdles leading the country toward the gallows but to be honest is rather boring. The American criminal justice system is merely a symptom of a decaying Republic.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 04:49 PM ET  12.20 by SteveDallas

Just because a Judge does something doesn't make it legal. Nor does the competence of counsel or lack there of, lend credence to to proceedings. More importantly the idea you believe a judge has the right to do jack diddley is rather disturbing. It is not a judges job to restrict an innocent American citizen from any legal activities. Remember innocent until proven guilty.However I'm sure a blackmail agreement was reached between the parties. Brent agrees to the blackmail and the judge knocks 80% off that ridiculous bond. That's how the most corrupt judicial system in the world works. It is impossible to tell who's the bigger scumbag.

So by your argument, a judge does not have the right to issue a restraining order against a man accused of beating his wife. If all the evidence indicates he is a danger to another human being, a judge DOES have the right to protect said human being. Therefore if this tool is a danger to other people because of his drinking, he is in affect under a "restraining order". Where am I wrong here. Please don't give me your opinion, give me facts