Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
lucky64

Paul Bennett Not Guilty of homicide

Recommended Posts

BREAKING: Jury finds Paul Bennett not guilty on homicide charges in Lake Lanier accident that claimed the lives on 9-year-old Jake Prince and 13-year-old Griffin Prince. Bennett found guilty on BUI, failure to render assistance charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury in Hall County has found a man not guilty of homicide by vessel in a boating collision that killed two young brothers.

 

Paul Bennett was, however, found guilty on several charges boating under the influence when he collided with a pontoon boat on Lake Lanier on June 18, 2012.

 

Jake and Griffin Prince, ages 9 and 13, died in the crash.

 

Bennett was also found guilty of reckless boating and failing to render aid.

 

Hall County District Attorney Lee Darragh cited results of an alcohol breath test taken hours after the collision, which showed a .14, well above the .08 legal limit.

 

Read rest of story here: My link

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most years I will spend 400 to 500 hours a year on the water. I NEVER so much as have a single beer while on the lake. I fully expected this low life to be found guilty of two counts of homicide and I think anything short of that sends a message to what I already consider to be a lake full of idiots that they can drink all they want and if they kill someone they can get out of it.

 

Not to mention that this guy looks like a prick. If it was my kid I am pretty sure I would be spending the rest of my life in prison because I would kill the worthless SOB. And if this dad kills him, if I were on the jury he would walk.

 

Pisses me off!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every puppy has his day, what goes around comes around..he was found innocent by a jury..but I wonder how he lives with himself knowing that two little boys are no more because of him???makes me feel sick to my stomach, what is wrong with everyone ???? all these young children being killed and then the justice system saying hey that's ok? makes you feel like you are in a twilight zone or a bad dream for sure.Prayers for the families.

Edited by OSU
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part of this that is eating at me is the failing to render assistance. Just how mousey of a little bastard can he be to not have at least stayed on the scene and tried to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part of this that is eating at me is the failing to render assistance. Just how mousey of a little bastard can he be to not have at least stayed on the scene and tried to help.

 

 

He said that his female company was having a diabetic episode and was trying to tend to her, hence his driving on the lake and hitting the pontoon and leaving the scene.

 

Then he said that he came back and tried to help find the other boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict doesn't make sense. Admittedly, I don't know all the details of this case, but as I understand, this guy was boating under the influence and collided with another boat. As a result of that collision, two boys were killed. How is that not a homicide? If this was Driving Under the Influence, and he crashed into another car, it would certainly be a homicide. I'm not sure I see the difference here. How devastating for the family of those boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sentencing just in - 2.5 years in jail, 1.5 on probation. That. just. sucks.

 

 

What the hell?????

 

For killing 2 children???? Oh, I can't even say what I want to!!!!:angry2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

every puppy has his day, what goes around comes around..he was found innocent by a jury..but I wonder how he lives with himself knowing that two little boys are no more because of him???makes me feel sick to my stomach, what is wrong with everyone ???? all these young children being killed and then the justice system saying hey that's ok? makes you feel like you are in a twilight zone or a bad dream for sure.Prayers for the families.

 

 

Yeah, kinda like open season on the kids :angry2:

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most years I will spend 400 to 500 hours a year on the water. I NEVER so much as have a single beer while on the lake. I fully expected this low life to be found guilty of two counts of homicide and I think anything short of that sends a message to what I already consider to be a lake full of idiots that they can drink all they want and if they kill someone they can get out of it.

 

Not to mention that this guy looks like a prick. If it was my kid I am pretty sure I would be spending the rest of my life in prison because I would kill the worthless SOB. And if this dad kills him, if I were on the jury he would walk.

 

Pisses me off!

 

 

I hear ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The verdict doesn't make sense. Admittedly, I don't know all the details of this case, but as I understand, this guy was boating under the influence and collided with another boat. As a result of that collision, two boys were killed. How is that not a homicide? If this was Driving Under the Influence, and he crashed into another car, it would certainly be a homicide. I'm not sure I see the difference here. How devastating for the family of those boys.

 

 

THANK YOU!!! That's what I can't understand, either. They found him guilty of BUI, guilty of reckless boating, and guilty of failing to render assistance. How in God's name then did they not find him guilty of homicide? It seems to me that one thing goes along with all the other things. :angry2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation is sad to say the least and I feel for the kids and family but the charges were first degree homicide. Doesn't that mean pre-medataded? I am not up on law so I am not sure. I think if they had charged him with manslaughter of some kind they would have got a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this:

 

 

Bennett was facing eight homicide charges holding him directly responsible for those deaths. Each of the homicide by vessel counts carried a three-year minimum and 15-year maximum sentence.

 

Again, I'm thinking it would have been easier getting an involuntary manslaughter than homicide conviction. Isn't that what they charge drunk drivers with?

 

 

There's always Karma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary manslaughter does not apply since the legislature specifically enacted a law to deal with those specific situations. The proper charge, as filed, is a form of vehicular homicide which means the death was caused in a vehicular collision without specific intent.

 

 

The only explanation is the jury believed the collision was unavoidable due to the darkness and the BUI played no factor. I know the defense did put on an expert which discussed visibility.

Edited by Ugadawgs98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard his lawyer say on the news that he was not responsible for the crash and the jury believed him.

 

Who caused the crash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard his lawyer say on the news that he was not responsible for the crash and the jury believed him.

 

Who caused the crash?

 

The same guy that got Nicole Brown Simpson and little Caylee Anthony?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A criminal trial isn't an attempt to find "the truth" nor is it an attempt to decide right and wrong, it boils down to a contest as to who is the better attorney in proving or disproving whether the law, as written, was broken. Different in a civil case, the parents should sue the kajeebers out of this guy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A criminal trial isn't an attempt to find "the truth" nor is it an attempt to decide right and wrong, it boils down to a contest as to who is the better attorney in proving or disproving whether the law, as written, was broken.

Sad but true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see some statistics regarding crimes against children. It seems to me that way too often they are being failed by DFACS and/or our judicial system.

 

I would rather this guy be sitting in jail for a long period of time rather than someone that got caught with some weed. Priorities folks, please!

 

Put the weed guy to work on something that would benefit the public, like training a seeing eye dog or something and have the killer sit in the cell & think about what he did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since from my understanding, the boys weren't killed in the wreck but drowned. My question is why didn't the boys have lifejackets on per state law for 16 and under on any boat. Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard his lawyer say on the news that he was not responsible for the crash and the jury believed him.

 

Who caused the crash?

If they had lights the crash might have been avoided. It was very dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since from my understanding, the boys weren't killed in the wreck but drowned. My question is why didn't the boys have lifejackets on per state law for 16 and under on any boat. Just asking.

 

 

One child died on the pontoon boat and the other child drowned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since from my understanding, the boys weren't killed in the wreck but drowned. My question is why didn't the boys have lifejackets on per state law for 16 and under on any boat. Just asking.

 

 

I thought the pontoon was stationary and the boat ran into the pontoon.

 

When you're stationary are life jacket still required?

 

I really don't know the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since from my understanding, the boys weren't killed in the wreck but drowned. My question is why didn't the boys have lifejackets on per state law for 16 and under on any boat. Just asking.

 

WRONG!

 

The law that went into effect this year (2013) is that persons less than 13 years of age must be wearing a PFD when aboard a moving vessel. This law was not in place when the accident occurred.

 

As for lights, the only lights required by law are the front navigation lights (green and red) and an anchor or white light at the rear of the vessel. Both of which show up very well on dark nights if you are falling down drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...