The 18-year-old who , , was charged with one count of reckless homicide and four counts of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicating compound on Wednesday morning, according to the Lake County State's Attorney's office.
Carly Rousso surrendered herself before Judge Raymond Collins Wednesday morning, where her bond was set at $500,000. Her bail was posted shortly after. As of 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Rousso was still in processing, but was set to be released Wednesday evening under the same .
On Monday, Sept. 3, at 2:31 p.m., Highland Park police responded to a crash. Investigation revealed that Rousso had driven a Lexus coupe onto the sidewalk on the 700 block of Central Avenue and into , her mother and two brothers. Jaclyn was killed, and her mother and brothers sustained injuries.
Toxicology reports indicate that the compound Difluoroethane was detected in Rousso's blood, which is found in a commercial cleaning product uncovered in Rousso's car.
Rousso's charges come as a result of a joint investigation by the and the Major Crash Assistance Team (MCAT). The investigation revealed that Rousso was driving eastbound on Central Avenue when she veered across multiple lanes of traffic and onto the sidewalk, striking and her three children.
Rousso was cited for driving under the influence shortly after the crash, at which time she submitted blood and urine samples. Police told Patch earlier this week that Rousso .
"We are investigating the use of huffing agents or huffing materials with relation to this," Deputy Chief of Support Services George Pfutzenreuter told Patch on Monday.
Aggravated driving under the influence is a class two felony that can lead to a prison sentence of three to 14 years. Reckless homicide is a class three felony that can lead to probation or up to five years in prison, .
Jaclyn's . About a hundered people attended the funeral mass, including , and .
During the bilingual service at Saint James Parish in Highwood, Rev. Thomas Baldonieri called Jaclyn "a joyful child" who enjoyed dressing in pink, like a princess.
"Jaclyn was born and received into loving hands and hearts," Baldonieri said. "Even now, we see just how many people are touched by Jaclyn's life and tragic death, even those who never met her."
Rousso's next court date is on Oct. 9 at 10:30 a.m.
For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
I never claimed that it'd be possible to "cure" an addict by giving them some drinks before they were 21. I stated that expecting persons to act responsibly when using a substance after they're 21 requires some experience beforehand, and the way they get that experience is under the supervision and direction of a parent/guardian. Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are pre-disposed to addiction or who have a familial history of substance abuse.
There's many reasons for the abuse, but look at one of the root causes - the inability to get a different, less injurious substance. Arguably, marijuana is one of those less injurious substances - no one's ever overdosed and died on marijuana because humans fall asleep long before they even get close to the LD50. Contrast with paint thinner or some other inhalant - they can cause, and have caused, death pretty quickly. They also have deleterious effects from long-term use. If you don't want kids to abuse drugs or other substances, you need to talk to them. Find out what the reason(s) is/are for using the substances, and go from there.
People who are depressed get therapy, take medication, work to get better, and don't drive high - that's 100% serious, nothing is uninformed either - it's a fact. And again, I DO understand the addictive personality traits. There's nothing wrong with attempting to understand an individual's personality or make sense of it - it's not ignorant, and psychologists/psychiatrists do it every day.
I agree with you about the legal system - it doesn't do anything to address the root causes, just the actions. Other countries have addressed the root causes and provided treatment rather than incarceration, and they've had great success with many (but not all) users. Given that we've been fooling around and wasting money on this War on Some Drugs for decades, it certainly couldn't hurt to try a different approach.
* Alcohol was prohibited. That prohibition created lots of crime - black markets, and people used alcohol despite the law. Bad booze was made sometimes, and it made people go blind or killed them. We repealed the prohibition - now we regulate and tax alcohol, and things have largely gotten better. Are some people still addicted? Sure. Do some people still do stupid things? Sure. You're never going to get rid of all the problems. We tried - and it didn't work. * The war on some drugs is quite similar to the war we had on alcohol. Only we haven't repealed the prohibitions yet. So we have black markets, overflowing jails/prisons, gazillions of dollars spent on enforcement that doesn't work, cartels digging tunnels/building submarines to bring in the substances. People who are addicted can't really get the help they need unless they fund it themselves. People sometimes die from certain substances due to variability in potency or adulterants. Other countries have decriminalized, and they have less issues. Again, a full discussion can't take place in 1500 characters. * With regard to alcohol - we used to let kids drink when they were 18. We used to allow them to have alcohol at home with their parents. Then "zero tolerance" came on the scene and it's made the problems WORSE. Got it now?
I know precisely when MADD was founded. Over that timeframe, they've been pushing and pushing and pushing for harsher and harsher laws and it's only relatively recently that "Zero Tolerance" has been implemented (and not just by MADD). I've NEVER said that people should drive intoxicated. What I've said about "zero tolerance" and alcohol is that it's caused issues with people because we have "ZERO TOLERANCE!!!!!!" (finger wag) for people under 21 imbibing any amount of alcohol, and then somehow we expect them to know how to drink responsibly when they turn 21. It's insane (and again Benny, I've never advocated giving addicts or those predisposed to addiction intoxicants). I've never discussed pills so I don't know why you think I did. Personally I believe that you take the pills that are prescribed for you by a Dr. and nothing else. I agree that Rx abuse is pretty bad too. Finally, in 1500 characters it's difficult to get into a discussion of "zero tolerance"-but here's an example of Zero Tolerance that's just crazy: "Elementary School has a ZT policy against firearms. Kids are playing 'cops n robbers' in the playground, one kid makes the shape of a gun with his fingers - and is brought up for expulsion." Now that's insane.
Benny said: "Take some pills".....This is just funny and so uninformed." Commenting on one portion "take some pills", calling it funny and uninformed was taking it out of context. What is it that you believe I don't understand? Or that I haven't explored deeply enough?
We don't know all the aspects of Ms. Russo's personality or birth-family history, so maybe there's a predisposition of addiction, maybe not. Was she sent to "rehab"? Sure. But there's many reasons why she may have ended up there to begin with, and being an addict is one possibility - but what triggered the abuse is perhaps another. The bearing on this incident is that the War on Some Drugs has attempted to restrict marijuana greatly. Tests have been developed. And it likely drove her to a different substance - with greater effects. Ms. Russo may have been using marijuana to deal with some issues she was experiencing or maybe just because she enjoyed the effects. Regardless, the illegality of the substance got her into trouble, she was sent to rehab, and knew testing would pick up future use. She likely still had the underlying issues disturbing her, so she turned to a different substance - one which wasn't so easily tested for, chose to use the substance in a vehicle, and tragedy ensued.
"The points I've made are not irrelevant and are do follow the argument that I was making which is that the war on some drugs, and zero tolerance of alcohol have created many more problems than they've solved." STRONGLY DISAGREE. You are delusional. Since this will remain the law of the land we will really never know so for you to say it is easy with no accountability. You are a typical liberal flap jaw boob with little common sense. So your argument is now that since she couldn't get her hands on weed so she went to Dust Off...Again, DELUSIONAL. That is the fault of the war on drugs. Are you reading this David. Think about what you are writing dude. It's Highland Park, Illinois. The dealers know it and flood the market with anything you want to get your hands on. Yes, Dust Off is easy but give me a break.
Drug addiction is a kindred spirit to the above. This is the best we have, unchanged in 77 years per Alcoholics Anonymous. David Greenberg's going to solve the malady by blaming the War on Drugs- AGHGAHGSHGAGHAGAGAHAGAGGAAHGSGHHAHGSGHAHAHSAGGSHAHAH
It's entirely possible that Ms. Russo went on to another substance such as DustOff, not because she couldn't acquire marijuana, but because she would be tested for it. And perhaps the main reason she'd be tested for it is because the War on Some Drugs made it illegal. Granted that it ought to be illegal for those under 18, but right now - it's the Drug War that's created many of these problems. People are prohibited from using something, want to get high, and get something else. And I'll concede the point that dealers will give you whatever you want - it's a business, they're out to make money, and that's done by fulfilling customer wants and desires.
Now that said, if someone gets into a vehicle and is driving stoned - that's a totally different discussion - whether they're an "addictive" personality or not. Marijuana is not physically addictive - a user can stop anytime. Contrast with alcohol or heroin - both can be physically addictive. I also agree that there's no such thing as recreational huffing - it might start out that way, but rapidly degrades into addiction. The War on Some Drugs has only served to drive people to substances different than the ones they may have preferred to use, had this silly war not been undertaken in the first place. Whether someone is an addict by nature and gets addicted to something, or isn't - has nothing to do with the drug war. It's genetics, family history, etc...
And yes, SOME are caused by the War on Some Drugs because users were essentially forced to use a different substance because of the "war". I know, I know - no one literally held a gun to their head and said "HERE! HUFF THIS!", but when someone wants to do something, they're going to find a way to do it. And when they want to get high, if they can't get their drug of choice (for whatever reason), they're going to move on to something else. In this case, the young lady apparently moved on to something that was quick, cheap, and not easily detected.
Drug addiction - whether it's alcohol or something else is a complex disease. You want to solve it? First look at genetics to try and figure out who's predisposed to it, then counsel those individuals accordingly (yes, there's a whole other discussion related to genetic testing, and counseling - I understand that). Then look at the root causes for someone wanting to drink, needing to drink. Address those root causes. Economic issues? Family issues? Abuse? Stress? More counseling. And yes, the key part is that the person has to WANT to get better. I understand that (always have). But we have to accept that some people may not want to get better - and in their case, we need to keep them from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.
"Marijuana is not physically addictive - a user can stop anytime." WRONG. Come on David THC is so addictive. Why do you keep bringing up LD-50? Who cares. Any drug, including alcohol can be lethal when used by addicts. It's just that simple and probably the case with this huffing incident as well in my opinion. Again, you are trying to makes sense of something that absolutely makes no sense. An addict does not purposely go from weed to Dust Off or to something else with any rational thought at all. They do what they can do when they can do it. To think the Rousso girl made a conscious decision to huff because she would not get tested for it is a ridiculous notion. Thanks for the banter David on this important and misunderstood topic.
Chocolate is 'addictive' if you don't have the good sense to stop eating it...
Thanks Cliff, we get it. You have smoked weed every day, 5 times a day for thirty years...but you're not addicted to it...at least not "physically addicted" to it...We get it---AHAHAGAHGAASHSAGAH
The aspects of mental addiction take many forms and can have many root causes-but stopping cold turkey isn't going to cause a physical manifestation that kills the user. Marijuana has no physical addiction, but it can have mental addictions. I keep bringing up the LD50 because people claim that Marijuana will kill you from mere use - that's incorrect. You can't overdose on it because the LD-50 is so extreme that no human could ever reach it-they'd fall asleep long before doing so. No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. As for going from marijuana to "Dust Off" because she couldn't use or obtain marijuana makes perfect sense. We have someone who's not physically addicted to marijuana, but apparently has a mental addiction to escape from *something* unknown to us. Getting in a ton of trouble, just getting out of rehab for marijuana, still being tested for marijuana, and still having the mental issue that requires escape forces a user to become creative in obtaining their high. So why not turn to something that's not often tested for, and is for all intents and purposes, virtually undetectable?
That substance? Fresh water.