Chan said his duty was to balance the deaths with the other factors of the case, including Lau’s age, her lack of criminal history and her remorse, as well as the fact that her own husband had died in a car accident early on in their marriage.
…
Survivors of the slain family accused Lau of transferring her ownership interest in several properties to new limited liability companies and selling properties to third-parties, including her son-in-law, transferring millions of dollars to avoid potential financial penalties from the civil suit.
On Friday, realizing that Chan was considering a sentence that did not include prison time for Lau, the siblings of the two deceased parents pleaded for Lau to be ordered to home detention and “meaningful” community service. They also asked the judge to consider revoking her driver’s license.
What the fuck?
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Does a shocking and infuriating result of a court case really qualify as a “You Should Know”?
On top of the outrageous hyperbole going on here. Just because someone got away with something heinous doesn’t mean the laws have changed.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 day ago
It’s Lemmy, you kinda have to get used to it.
kn33@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t have to. I can continue to down vote, report, and bitch in the comments
lemming741@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Slammed!
tomi000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
For edge cases where there is no specific law for exactly that situation, precedent is usually what matters. So if you recreate a similar scenario you will very likely get the same outcome in court.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
While technically true, you have to be kidding me if you think there aren’t relevant laws for a situation like this.