HS Party with Alcohol... Death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Salzmann gets the sentence and the kid gets some time and community service. What an F'd up system that Salzmann did not get involuntary manslaughter.

Agreed

+2

It's all about connections, people. Ken Saltzman is well-connected. He'll get away with anything.

It has nothing to do with connections. His actions do not constitute involuntary manslaughter under the laws as they currently exist.

Why did he pay only $2500 times two?? Connections.

Because that is the maximum fine as called for in the law. It has nothing to do with "connections".

Exactly. They gave him the maximum under current law. If this is the same poster all the time claiming wealth and connections, it's getting really old.

I am not the PP but you are wrong. $2500 per child drinking alcohol on your premises is the law. No maximum. He had over 20 kids in his house. 4 of them left drunk in a car. That does not equal $5000. He made a deal and the DA (who probably knows him) allowed it. There is another man that has 16 kids and a penalty of up to $35,000

The law of jail time and increased fines for parents throwing parties has gone thru the house but is not a law quite yet. Will hopefully be soon.

Right. And it requires proof. The police have stated that witnesses weren't forthcoming. Unless you really have an inside in the case, you are assuming quite a lot that he got off because of "connections".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Salzmann gets the sentence and the kid gets some time and community service. What an F'd up system that Salzmann did not get involuntary manslaughter.

Agreed

+2

It's all about connections, people. Ken Saltzman is well-connected. He'll get away with anything.

It has nothing to do with connections. His actions do not constitute involuntary manslaughter under the laws as they currently exist.

Why did he pay only $2500 times two?? Connections.

Because that is the maximum fine as called for in the law. It has nothing to do with "connections".

Exactly. They gave him the maximum under current law. If this is the same poster all the time claiming wealth and connections, it's getting really old.

I am not the PP but you are wrong. $2500 per child drinking alcohol on your premises is the law. No maximum. He had over 20 kids in his house. 4 of them left drunk in a car. That does not equal $5000. He made a deal and the DA (who probably knows him) allowed it. There is another man that has 16 kids and a penalty of up to $35,000

The law of jail time and increased fines for parents throwing parties has gone thru the house but is not a law quite yet. Will hopefully be soon.

Right. And it requires proof. The police have stated that witnesses weren't forthcoming. Unless you really have an inside in the case, you are assuming quite a lot that he got off because of "connections".

Of course the lawyer host dad lawyered-up the kids and told them not to admit anything to the police. That's why the investigators had to subpoena everyone's cell phone accounts, and the investigation took so many months to complete.

There was tons of evidence proving that many more than two kids were drinking beer with him.

But you already know all this, Mr. Connected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Salzmann gets the sentence and the kid gets some time and community service. What an F'd up system that Salzmann did not get involuntary manslaughter.

Agreed

+2

It's all about connections, people. Ken Saltzman is well-connected. He'll get away with anything.

It has nothing to do with connections. His actions do not constitute involuntary manslaughter under the laws as they currently exist.

Why did he pay only $2500 times two?? Connections.

Because that is the maximum fine as called for in the law. It has nothing to do with "connections".

Exactly. They gave him the maximum under current law. If this is the same poster all the time claiming wealth and connections, it's getting really old.

I am not the PP but you are wrong. $2500 per child drinking alcohol on your premises is the law. No maximum. He had over 20 kids in his house. 4 of them left drunk in a car. That does not equal $5000. He made a deal and the DA (who probably knows him) allowed it. There is another man that has 16 kids and a penalty of up to $35,000

The law of jail time and increased fines for parents throwing parties has gone thru the house but is not a law quite yet. Will hopefully be soon.

Right. And it requires proof. The police have stated that witnesses weren't forthcoming. Unless you really have an inside in the case, you are assuming quite a lot that he got off because of "connections".

Of course the lawyer host dad lawyered-up the kids and told them not to admit anything to the police. That's why the investigators had to subpoena everyone's cell phone accounts, and the investigation took so many months to complete.

There was tons of evidence proving that many more than two kids were drinking beer with him.

But you already know all this, Mr. Connected.

Just ugh. Give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

When you continually throw around "lawyered up", "shyster", "connected" and "estate" no one can take you seriously. Look, I want to see the book thrown at this guy but you are showing your lack of knowledge of the law and taking away from the real problem - the laws need to be changed. It contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with 12:56 - absolutely deplorable how those kids all clammed up. Betrayed their friends even in death.

They must all be in therapy to cope with the burden of compiling with the parent who pressed them to keep quiet.

Their therapy is drinking.

Looks like over 50 of them went to mexico. Business as usual.

Unbelievable. There's something seriously wrong with Kenneth Saltzman and his wife for doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Salzmann gets the sentence and the kid gets some time and community service. What an F'd up system that Salzmann did not get involuntary manslaughter.

Agreed

+2

It's all about connections, people. Ken Saltzman is well-connected. He'll get away with anything.

It has nothing to do with connections. His actions do not constitute involuntary manslaughter under the laws as they currently exist.

Why did he pay only $2500 times two?? Connections.

Because that is the maximum fine as called for in the law. It has nothing to do with "connections".

Exactly. They gave him the maximum under current law. If this is the same poster all the time claiming wealth and connections, it's getting really old.

I am not the PP but you are wrong. $2500 per child drinking alcohol on your premises is the law. No maximum. He had over 20 kids in his house. 4 of them left drunk in a car. That does not equal $5000. He made a deal and the DA (who probably knows him) allowed it. There is another man that has 16 kids and a penalty of up to $35,000

The law of jail time and increased fines for parents throwing parties has gone thru the house but is not a law quite yet. Will hopefully be soon.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with 12:56 - absolutely deplorable how those kids all clammed up. Betrayed their friends even in death.

They must all be in therapy to cope with the burden of compiling with the parent who pressed them to keep quiet.

Their therapy is drinking.

Looks like over 50 of them went to mexico. Business as usual.

Unbelievable. There's something seriously wrong with Kenneth Saltzman and his wife for doing this.

And the 50 people who continue to follow them and party.

[Anonymous]

Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Nothing will deter party dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Nothing will deter party dad.

That's certainly true, but perhaps the overall culture can change. If one or two idiot parents turn into outliers then maybe perceptions will start to shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Why do we need another law named after a person (or persons)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Why do we need another law named after a person (or persons)?

We don't, but their parents pushed for it, and that's how it works. I think that there are more substantive issues about the law than the law's name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Why do we need another law named after a person (or persons)?

We don't, but their parents pushed for it, and that's how it works. I think that there are more substantive issues about the law than the law's name.

Which issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calvin and Alex's law passed. It won't help this case, but may deter future parties.

Why do we need another law named after a person (or persons)?

We don't, but their parents pushed for it, and that's how it works. I think that there are more substantive issues about the law than the law's name.

Which issues?

Apparently none.

[Anonymous]

Bump