Fred Durst mocks justice

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-09-17 03:12pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6998744.stm

Limp Bizkit singer Fred Durst has been given a suspended 120-day jail sentence after he allegedly hit two people with his car on purpose.

Durst, 37, pleaded no contest to seven charges, including assault, battery and reckless driving, at a court hearing in Los Angeles last month.

He was also ordered to perform 20 hours of community service and fined $1,500 (£750), according to court documents.

The incident took place in Los Angeles during October last year.

Restraining order

Misdemeanour charges filed in January included two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, three counts of battery, one count of making a criminal threat and one count of reckless driving.

Durst, who entered the no contest plea on 16 August, was slapped with a restraining order saying he cannot "annoy, harass, strike, threaten or otherwise disturb the peace" of the two victims, whose names were not disclosed.

The singer was told he must stay at least 100 yards away from the victims and that he cannot possess a firearm.

A telephone message left after office hours on Friday with The Firm, the Beverly Hills representatives for Durst and Limp Bizkit, was not immediately returned, the Associated Press news agency said.

It's bad enough for the world that someone as contemptibly lame as Durst can get ridiculously rich without getting a slap on the wrist for attacking people with a fucking car. What a complete farce.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-09-17 03:16pm

How the fuck did he not get 'Assault with a Deadly Weapon'? Oh wait, this is america and he's aristocr^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcelebrity!

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-09-17 03:24pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:How the fuck did he not get 'Assault with a Deadly Weapon'?

The Article wrote:Misdemeanour charges filed in January included two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, three counts of battery, one count of making a criminal threat and one count of reckless driving.

I'm more surprised at the fact his license wasn't revoked immediately.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2007-09-17 03:29pm

This is not Celebrity Adorationland. This is Freedomland. There are no separate laws for the rich and powerful, it is all an illusion by the liberal media. We respect those who aren't famous for anything, or sly and conniving enough to get filthy rich off the common man.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-09-17 04:00pm

Money pays justice in the land of the free

Jaepheth · Post by **Jaepheth** » 2007-09-17 04:14pm

Don't most people who intentionally hit people with a car get charged with attempted murder too?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-17 04:18pm

Jaepheth wrote:Don't most people who intentionally hit people with a car get charged with attempted murder too?

It's not just celebrity; it's wealth. If you're a prosecutor and you know that your target has deep pockets, then you also know that it will cost a fortune to prosecute him because he can buy enough lawyers to drag it out and make you do a hundred times more work to convict him than any other criminal. From a utilitarian standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to devote so much of your limited resources to nail one guy when there is already a huge backlog in the court system and there are so many other scumbags to nail (most of whom will go down a lot more easily). Add to that the fact that some criminal trials are being thrown out on statute of limitations because they take so long to come to trial, and you have to ask yourself what better serves the public. So unless you have some particular reason why you think it's worth it, you'll tend to try and work out a plea bargain, even if it seems unreasonably generous.

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2007-09-17 04:23pm

Not a lawyer here but by pleading no cotest, dosen't he leaving himself wide open to civil action?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-17 05:54pm

Azazal wrote:Not a lawyer here but by pleading no cotest, dosen't he leaving himself wide open to civil action?

Not really. He's wide open for civil action anyway.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2007-09-18 04:37am

WHat's the difference between 'no contest' and 'guilty'? Or are they the same but 'no contest' is the weasel way of saying it?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-09-18 06:17am

No contest is basically, not admitting you're guilty but not arguing about the punishment either. Also, because it isnt admitting you did it, it cant be used to establish that it happened for a civil action.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2007-09-18 10:40pm

2000AD wrote:WHat's the difference between 'no contest' and 'guilty'? Or are they the same but 'no contest' is the weasel way of saying it?

Basically, you're saying that you didn't do it, but that you cannot provide evidence or a real compelling reason to show that you didn't do it, so you'll accept the punishment as if you had done it.